U.N. May Have to Abandon Afghan Effort

[budanski]

U.N. May Have to Abandon Afghan Effort
Associated Press (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=16&u=/ap/afghan_un_warning)

KABUL, Afghanistan - The United Nations (news - web sites) — already forced out of Iraq (news - web sites) by suicide bombers — may have to abandon its two-year effort to stabilize Afghanistan (news - web sites) because of rising violence blamed on the Taliban, its top official here warned Friday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Lakhdar Brahimi said his team could not continue its work in this war-ravaged nation unless security improves. He called for more foreign troops to halt attacks that have killed at least 11 aid workers across the south and east since March.

"Countries that are committed to supporting Afghanistan cannot kid themselves and cannot go on expecting us to work in unacceptable security conditions," Brahimi said.

"They seem to think that our presence is important here. Well, if they do, they have got to make sure that the conditions for us to be here are there," he said. "If not, we will go away."

NATO (news - web sites), which commands a 5,500-member peacekeeping force in the capital, Kabul, has agreed in principle to expand into the provinces. But nations have been slow to come forward with pledges of troops and equipment.

In addition to the peacekeepers, a U.S.-led force of some 11,700 soldiers are still pursuing Taliban remnants, followers of al-Qaida and fighters loyal to renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, responding to Brahimi's comments, said the Bush administration hopes the world body remains in Afghanistan.

"Our military and those working with us there as well in the coalition efforts have done an outstanding job to improve the security situation," McClellan said.

"There's more to do and they're continuing to do that," he said. "But the U.N. has an important role to play in the efforts going on there — they have been playing an important role and we hope they will continue to."

German and Canadian troops now make up the bulk of the NATO peacekeeping force.

Brahimi said Turkey was considering sending more soldiers to join up. "We hear that the Turks are thinking about sending more troops and that's very welcome."

But he emerged empty-handed from a meeting Friday with the French defense minister.

The minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, "tells me she is not against the principle of expansion but nobody is coming in with resources, with soldiers and they, France, are committed elsewhere," Brahimi said.

NATO's expansion outside Kabul is shaping into teams that would provide security to humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in the provinces. The Germans have agreed to spearhead a team in the north, in Kunduz, and the United States is leading several others around the country, particularly in the troubled south.

But the United Nations views the teams as no substitute for an expanded security force.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested this month that NATO could take over all military operations in the country — including combat missions now run by the U.S.-led force.

The United Nations pulled its foreign staff out of vast areas of the country in October after the death of Bettina Goislard, a 29-year-old French refugee worker slain in the eastern city of Ghazni. It also suspended some operations in regions bordering Pakistan, where Taliban militants and their allies have been most active.

The pullback followed a similar drawdown in Iraq, where an August truck bomb that killed 23 people at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad sparked the withdrawal of international U.N. staff.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Iraq is still too dangerous. Most U.N. functions in Iraq are to operate from a new regional base in Cyprus, with local staff trying to fill the gap.

U.N. calls for international troops to fan out across Afghanistan's troubled provinces got louder after Goislard became the first international U.N. worker killed here since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001.

This month, the U.S.-led force launched a big, new operation across the south and east. But the operation, dubbed Avalanche, has been overshadowed by the deaths of 15 children in two U.S. military raids on suspected militants.

Brahimi urged the U.S. military to take more care to avoid such tragedies, and also to drop some of its most questionable allies, a reference to anti-Taliban warlords viewed by many Afghans as corrupt and dangerous.

In a discussion paper sent to diplomats in Kabul this week, Brahimi warned that the unpopularity of such warlords — including some in Cabinet — was playing into the hands of the Taliban.

Brahimi, who plans to give up his post at the end of December, called for a new international conference to shore up the peace process that began in Germany two years ago.

Resurgent Taliban violence is "delaying the creation of a stable peaceful society. That it will derail the process? I don't think so," he said.


Whats sad is that America's critics and sadly, every Democrat candidate for President....wants America to put her security into the hands of the U.N.

Anyone gullible enough to count on these losers to win the war on terror?

[usa320]

****in assholes, they can go **** saddam hussein and kofi annan can go screw osama.

[Chris1]

Thats ****ing it
Listen very closely I shall say this only once
AT WHAT ****ING POINT DID YOU SEE THE UN AS A MILITARY ORGANISATION?
IS THIS SOME KIND OF SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY YOU SODDING PEOPLE HAVE?
MAKE THE UN MORE LIKE A MILITARY ORGANISATION SO I CAN RUN THEM OFF MAH PROPERTAI WITH MAH SHOTGUN WHEN THEM THAR BLUE HELMETTED BASTARDS COME KNOCKING TO TAKE MAH SHOTGUN AWAY?
PLEASE ELABORATE HOW UNARMED NGO'S DECIDING A SITUATION IS TOO DANGEROUS TO OPERATE IN HAS ANY DAMN BEARING ON YOUR SECURITY?

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Ya the U.N. has definately out lived its use. If the world's armed forces were run by the U.N. terrorists would own us. From there sanctions that dont do any good to the resolutions that are meaningless, theres only two possible ways for the U.N. to turn.

A: It can go belly up and be useless as **** on a bull. I personally feel if the U.N. is willing to run away from Afghanistan and Iraq they have officially out lived its use.

B: It can go over some major personell changes, they need people in charge that are willing to take command and make a stand. Otherwise it yet again it will become useless, and hide behind sanctions and resolutions.

[Pojo]

The UN time in its current implementation has long gone, its time to either seriously rethink their purpose and implementation or just die off. They are completely inept when it comes to any military action on their own. If they only going to be doing humanitarian missions might as well let the Red Cross handle it.

:cantbeli:

[Tane Angle]

I think there might still be a use/need for them, but certain things might need to be changed, particularly the veto part, perhaps. Also, remember that the UN does do a lot that is simply less talked about. They're doing more to fight AIDs in Africa than the US is, so I'll give them credit for that. A forum for countries to meet is extremely important, and, I think, necessary. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Zach R.]

The only thing the UN is good for...is......well........about the only thing the EU is good for. Nothing.

[He219]

More power to ...

NATO

and it's growing member states.

:P

[Seiyuuki]

The only thing the UN is good for...is......well........about the only thing the EU is good for. Nothing.

Lets not be quick to judge, the EU still have a long, long, long way to go before it is even adequate to be judge whether it is an effective organization or not.

...and yes, more power to NATO!!!!!!!!!

[GazB]

Kinda sad that you think the UN was ever intended to be a military force that imposes the will or America or any other country on other soverign nations.
It was always meant for discussion and debate. I think the intervention side was bollocks anyway and that the veto system has been good in largely preventing UN involvement to sort out disputes. The US vetos or ignores anything the UN says about its actions around the world, or anything said about israel that it doesn't like. If anyone has made the UN redundant it is the US which seems to just want it to give the OK and support it when it decides this country or that one should be invaded.
The UN is an international forum... INTERNATIONAL forum. The US would never want it to be strong or powerful or useful. Then the US wouldn't get its way all the time and small countries would have somewhere to turn when the US send a few carriers to sit off their coast.
Even if the rest of the world gave everythign they spent on defence for the year every year the UN still wouldn't have the money the US spends every year on "defence".

[Pojo]

Here is the bottom line, might makes right. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, history has repeatedly show it to be true. Any world power nation needs the ability to enforce/protect its interests. With a strong military presence you have strong political voice, its all interconnected just like you wont have a good strong economy without a strong military sector.

UN either needs the ability to enforce its will or people wont care what it has to say. Again this has nothing to do with whether they make good decisions or not. If you cant enforce ANY decision then it doesn't matter if its good or bad. What's the point of having an organization that cant implement any of it decisions without the US doing it for them. Might as well just let US do everything from decision to implementation.

[Seiyuuki]

Kinda sad that you think the UN was ever intended to be a military force that imposes the will or America or any other country on other soverign nations.
It was always meant for discussion and debate. I think the intervention side was bollocks anyway and that the veto system has been good in largely preventing UN involvement to sort out disputes. The US vetos or ignores anything the UN says about its actions around the world, or anything said about israel that it doesn't like. If anyone has made the UN redundant it is the US which seems to just want it to give the OK and support it when it decides this country or that one should be invaded.
The UN is an international forum... INTERNATIONAL forum. The US would never want it to be strong or powerful or useful. Then the US wouldn't get its way all the time and small countries would have somewhere to turn when the US send a few carriers to sit off their coast.
Even if the rest of the world gave everythign they spent on defence for the year every year the UN still wouldn't have the money the US spends every year on "defence".

So, basically, the destiny of the UN is to polarize the world and provide that opposite pole to challenge the authority of the Imperialist Yanks.

Again with the money spending...maybe if New Zealand start on a road of empire building and capitalist ventures, then maybe 100% of their income might be close to about 0.00000001% of the American's income.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

The UN has been in the ****ter for a long time, but when it installs a terrorist nation (Syria) on the security council then it has gotten real bad. I also like how the UN kicked the US off of the Human Rights Commission for not paying our dues and puts Libya in our place. Such incidents as these really shows the incompetence of the UN.

[Shake n Bake]

U.N. = irrelevant debate club


Phuck the blue helmets

[Durandal]

Thats f*** it
Listen very closely I shall say this only once
AT WHAT f*** POINT DID YOU SEE THE UN AS A MILITARY ORGANISATION?
IS THIS SOME KIND OF SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY YOU SODDING PEOPLE HAVE?
MAKE THE UN MORE LIKE A MILITARY ORGANISATION SO I CAN RUN THEM OFF MAH PROPERTAI WITH MAH SHOTGUN WHEN THEM THAR BLUE HELMETTED BASTARDS COME KNOCKING TO TAKE MAH SHOTGUN AWAY?
PLEASE ELABORATE HOW UNARMED NGO'S DECIDING A SITUATION IS TOO DANGEROUS TO OPERATE IN HAS ANY DAMN BEARING ON YOUR SECURITY?

Sorry, was that directed at the Americans who find it silly that a political organization that wants to establish policies around the world and enforce a general world peace finds itself unable to enforce it?

Come on now. Reality man, check it.

How can an politcal body gaurantee the laws they put in place are abided by? How can they protect the innocent?

The U.N needs both the might and the will to validate their mandates...otherwise it is nothing but a club. Currently they have access to the might but do not have the will.

The funny part is the fact that people like you seem to think rule and law come from a speech and a stern look and then act as if we are some sort of right wing facists when we laugh at the absurdity.

[Chris1]

Well, you did the same thing I just did and generalise so I won't jump on it
but
I'm well aware that force is required occasionally to enfore the peace and have absolutely no problem with it, however Organisations ran by the UN Feed, cloth and house as well as in some cases protect a significant percentage of the population of the planet who cannot do it themselves, shut them down and what good does it do?
Makes some people around here warm and fuzzy that a lot of people are chucked out in the snow?
I entirely agree with He219, more power to NATO (as an International military organisation from the start) rather than attempting to give power to the UN which is not an organisation that was meant to have a permenant, offensive force attached to it.

[Durandal]

Well, you did the same thing I just did and generalise so I won't jump on it
but
I'm well aware that force is required occasionally to enfore the peace and have absolutely no problem with it, however Organisations ran by the UN Feed, cloth and house as well as in some cases protect a significant percentage of the population of the planet who cannot do it themselves, shut them down and what good does it do?
Makes some people around here warm and fuzzy that a lot of people are chucked out in the snow?
I entirely agree with He219, more power to NATO (as an International military organisation from the start) rather than attempting to give power to the UN which is not an organisation that was meant to have a permenant, offensive force attached to it.

NATO has nothing to do with the U.N. nore SHOULD the U.N. have a military of its own *shudder*.

The point is, U.N. is an appeasement and weak willed organization. They do not like conflict and run when it gets tough. To me they resemble the League of Nations more than anything else currently.

[Argyll]

This is quite interesting.
It seems that most of the US members are very critical of the way the UN has handled things around the world,and that they see it as a dead horse,and the comments about appeasement are flying around left right and centre!
This would be the same UN that both the USA and the UK belong to,who also sat by and watched Africa virtually destroy itself,who also sat by and watched the Balkans destroy itself,who also sit by and watch the Isareli /Palestine factions destroy themselves,people in glass houses should not throw stones!!

[Trident-za]

I agree 100% with that, Argyll.....

As 2 of the most powerful members of the UN, the USA and the UK have a lot to do with how strong/weak the UN is. I'm not saying its ALL up to them, but they certainly can't blame all it's weaknesses/failures on the other nations can they?? And listening to all this "the UN is crap" stuff (as if the USA or UK have nothing to do with that state of affairs) is amusing to say the least.

[martinexsquaddie]

america helped start the UN up and since the start of the cold war either used it to bash the soviets or ignored it.
then also cynically withheld funds. Its never like the idea of international law because that may not always go its own way.
For example I doubt we will see Henry kissinger coming anyway near the uk ever again :lol:

[Durandal]

You say this like most of us do not understand this.

I said the UN, not NATO, not the EU. The UN. The organization, not its members. As of late, say the last decade, I have found very little value insome of the decisions made in the UN.

Stew

[ST4]

First, the League of Nations was created and then disbanded . Now is the United Nations?

I can understand why they left Iraq, but Afghanistan? This world is being Fedex to hell. :(

[Argyll]

Is it also not the case where many see the UN as another drain on the US taxpayers money too?
If the UN were to be broken up,then what happens to all the resoloutions passsed to justify certain actions in certain ares of the Globe?
What would become of all the nations who have sanctions imposed against them for whatever the reason,would they say hell if the US can ignore it a break away,then why the hell should we comply with the sanctions?
Who then is responsible for the inaction when no doubt Millions will lose their lives because of it?
Consider this,berate the UN as much as you wish,but there are Miliions all around the world who's lives HAVE been made better and safer because of the UN!!!!

[Pojo]

The US is a UN member for only a few reason, they don't really care about it or what it decides on. However it still wants some say in what the breakfast club decides. In a way its a win-win for the US no matter what happens. If the UN agrees with the US decision then they can go around waving the UN DECISION we just the tools rofl like they did in iraq. If the UN does not agree then we just go and do it anyway's against the UN decision making them look stupid and incompetent. :backhand: The fact that the US doesn't really need the UN has been obvious for a long time and the fact that the US considers itself above the UN influence has also pissed of a lot of nation that now think we some evil empire. p-) In many ways the fear is justified but again even if the US act a little more belligerent people will still think its evil. Sadly all we doing is protecting our interests the same way any other country would protect its own. Only reason anyone is complaining today is because there is a huge power vacuum left after the cold war and people no longer see the need to have so much power all in one nation. Perhaps North Korea or China will emerge as our new big enemy and then people will come down and side with the US once more. If not because they like us but at least its the lesser evil.

I think that the UN does provide some small services that should remain but overall its time to either end this half ass ed club or improve it for the better. Sadly I just don't see how you can ever make many nations of different origin with different values and goals ever agree on anything for good. Its a nice idea in theory but will never ever work in practice. :cantbeli:

[Gimper5]

what exactly is this article saying. is it saying UN is going to punk out and let the US go on this alone?

[StarvingStudent47]

Isn't it amazing how you can spell "chickensh*t" with just two letters?

[Mark Sman]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is between a rock and a hard place on leading this world body. He desperately wants to enlist the support of various countries in UN efforts around the world, but every time UN employees are killed or harmed member states are more reluctant to send help.

Also, the actual administrative structure of UN groups varies wildly from one to another. Some groups are great, others suck. Its a function of what people you have inside that group and what their goals are.

Many members of various positions in the UN have their own agenda. Their agenda may not match the mission at hand. There is no way I know of to change this. Its a grimace and bear it situation that comes from drawing from such a diverse group of people.

One thing is a fact though. The UN will continue to be called to operate in extremely hostile enviroments. Everyone might as well get used to it. Train and equip for it. Member states are also going to have to expect some deaths among the people they send to participate in these type of missions. Its a volunteer thing, as I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately many countries will volunteer themselves out when this happens.


I find it no end of amusing that when Americans are being criticized one of the most common forms is "You guys think yaddda yadda yadda." Don't tell me what I think. Tell me what you think. And back it up.

Replies and Addendums


"AT WHAT f*** POINT DID YOU SEE THE UN AS A MILITARY ORGANISATION?
IS THIS SOME KIND OF SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY YOU SODDING PEOPLE HAVE? "
- Chris1

In future posts please attempt to make sense. I mean seriously, the posts that preceded this semi-literate diatribe mentioned nothing of the sort.


"This is quite interesting.
It seems that most of the US members are very critical of the way the UN has handled things around the world,and that they see it as a dead horse,and the comments about appeasement are flying around left right and centre!
This would be the same UN that both the USA and the UK belong to,who also sat by and watched Africa virtually destroy itself,who also sat by and watched the Balkans destroy itself,who also sit by and watch the Isareli /Palestine factions destroy themselves,people in glass houses should not throw stones!!"
- Argyll

The UN doesn't get a good rap in the US. And that is not without reason. I'm sure if you stoped for a second you could name some UN mistakes. The comments about appeasement are indeed flying around. There is a feeling in the U.S. that the UN is about to pull a League of Nations type screw up. In actuallity most people here don't want that, they want to see the UN pull it together.

This would be the same UN that the UK and USA belong to. The difference is that the US and UK and allies led efforts in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East while the UN sat and wanked. Indeed people in glass houses probably shouldn't even own stones, and I think the consensus is growing here in the US that, in fact, they don't. I do not include myself fully in this group, as I believe the UN can still be a force for peace on this troubled little mud ball.


america helped start the UN up and since the start of the cold war either used it to bash the soviets or ignored it.
- martinexsquaddie

Would this "used it to bash the soviets or ignored it" include things like ummm the security council resolution of June 25, 1950? Or perhaps you were refering to when we hosted the UN charter meetings in San Francisco? No thats probably not it either. You must mean how we viciously host the UN headquarters on some of the most valuable land in our country? Nope, don't think thats what you were gettting at either. I probably don't want to bring up the Suez Canal crisis as I don't think that is what you meant. Care to elaborate?


"Its never like the idea of international law because that may not always go its own way.
For example I doubt we will see Henry kissinger coming anyway near the uk ever again"
- martinexsquaddie

Yeah, no doubt. http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/index.html
They should watch who they hand those things out too



"Is it also not the case where many see the UN as another drain on the US taxpayers money too?"- Argyll
Yes and no. Many people think that, but when you look at the monetary costs of UN membership compared to the US budget . . . well lets just say the UN isn't putting a big fiscal strain on us. People still whine and bitch about it, but if they realised we spend more money studying alligator farts they'd just laugh and cut the check.



"what exactly is this article saying. is it saying UN is going to punk out and let the US go on this alone?"
- Gimper5
No and No. The UN may punk out in part. It may even punk out big time. But the US will still not be going it alone in Afghanistan. There is alot of international support in country right now, and not the shoot at me and I run away type stuff. Its the shot at me, I do chicken dance on your head, then finish rebuilding hospital type. There just isn't enough help there yet for how F'd up the country is. When I say F'd up I mean a total freaking loss. The whole infrastructure is destroyed, societal mechanisms, besides Islam, have been dismantled. And armed extremists, heroin smugglers, religous zelots, foreign terrorists and just plain uneducated gun toting losers run rampant in the place. The future there is bleak, UN or no UN. The international community is just going to have to buckle down and work on this place for a hundred years to bring it up to a standard that would gag a maggot. Thats OK though, I'm sure its the US's fault.


I'll end with a quote from outside follow the link for the rest:
"In a world that still lacks a reliable system for security, can the leadership of one nation, however powerful and benevolent, be enough? The tendency to wait for the United States to act as a leader in international emergencies -- whether in the Gulf, the Middle East, the Pacific, Bosnia, Somalia, or the subcontinent -- is one of the odder elements of the post-cold war period. Other nations, and especially emerging powers, are bound to be increasingly suspicious of leadership by a single superpower, and it is far from certain whether American citizens themselves want their country to be the one that other countries always depend on to take the initiative. The question of who will organize international emergency action when the United States is unwilling to do so remains unanswered."
by Brian Urquhart
http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/sheriff.htm

This day in history. December 15, 1979 - World Court in Hague rules Iran should release all US hostages

[aktarian]

Sorry, was that directed at the Americans who find it silly that a political organization that wants to establish policies around the world and enforce a general world peace finds itself unable to enforce it?

Come on now. Reality man, check it.

How can an politcal body gaurantee the laws they put in place are abided by? How can they protect the innocent?

The U.N needs both the might and the will to validate their mandates...otherwise it is nothing but a club. Currently they have access to the might but do not have the will.

The funny part is the fact that people like you seem to think rule and law come from a speech and a stern look and then act as if we are some sort of right wing facists when we laugh at the absurdity.

Out of curiosity, how are they to do that if


NATO has nothing to do with the U.N. nore SHOULD the U.N. have a military of its own *shudder*.


They are not supposed to have military but need to military muscle to enforce it's decisions? Care to explain how?

[Durandal]

Out of curiosity, how are they to do that if


NATO has nothing to do with the U.N. nore SHOULD the U.N. have a military of its own *shudder*.


They are not supposed to have military but need to military muscle to enforce it's decisions? Care to explain how?

Ummm hello, the U.N. member provide the forces. The U.N. is an organization, NOT a nation. In theory the will fo the U.N. comes from the will of the member nations, NOT the organization leadership itself. The U.N does nto need a military force because the member nations have them and have provided them. The forces have NEVER been commanded by a U.N. official, they have been commanded by the members' military and civilian leaders.

They wear the "Blue Hats" as symbol a joined effort of the world community to solve a problem through the display of force (and if neccessary its use) and unity...not a U.N. army proper.

[Royal]

"Its never like the idea of international law because that may not always go its own way.
For example I doubt we will see Henry kissinger coming anyway near the uk ever again"
- martinexsquaddie

Yeah, no doubt. http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/index.html
They should watch who they hand those things out too

They should indeed;

2002 Jimmy Carter - eh?
1998 John Hume, David Trimble - for what? Caving in to terrorists
1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin - you decide who's the worst terrorist...
1978 Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin - see 1994
1977 Amnesty International - we all know what most Yanks think of them
1973 Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho...

I'd cheerfully shoot the bastard if he set foot in the UK :D

[DE_Six]

The UN appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee. Only 3 countries voted against: US, Canada and Guatemala. European countries abstained.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/libya082002.htm

http://www.hrw.org/mideast/libya.php

Enough said.

[the_spec]

As for the US, I don't think that a nation who apparently only wants to protect its own interests, should be in an organization that wants to protect world interests.
You can't expect other countries to follow in line if you're the only feeling threatened. And it's not like one opinion counts more than the other.

[TheBenz]

is the U.N. blind?

[Durandal]

As for the US, I don't think that a nation who apparently only wants to protect its own interests, should be in an organization that wants to protect world interests.
You can't expect other countries to follow in line if you're the only feeling threatened. And it's not like one opinion counts more than the other.

That is an interesting notion. I do not think I would trust a government that did not have the interests of the people that elected it first and foremost. A governments' PRIMARY purpose is to protect and further the interests of its people, not the world.

[Durandal]

The UN appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee. Only 3 countries voted against: US, Canada and Guatemala. European countries abstained.

Enough said.

Toooooo TRUE.

[aktarian]

Ummm hello, the U.N. member provide the forces. The U.N. is an organization, NOT a nation. In theory the will fo the U.N. comes from the will of the member nations, NOT the organization leadership itself. The U.N does nto need a military force because the member nations have them and have provided them. The forces have NEVER been commanded by a U.N. official, they have been commanded by the members' military and civilian leaders.

They wear the "Blue Hats" as symbol a joined effort of the world community to solve a problem through the display of force (and if neccessary its use) and unity...not a U.N. army proper.

Isn't this how it's done today? So what exactlly would change?

[UoUo]

"Its never like the idea of international law because that may not always go its own way.
For example I doubt we will see Henry kissinger coming anyway near the uk ever again"
- martinexsquaddie

Yeah, no doubt. http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/index.html
They should watch who they hand those things out too

They should indeed;

2002 Jimmy Carter - eh?
1998 John Hume, David Trimble - for what? Caving in to terrorists
1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin - you decide who's the worst terrorist...
1978 Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin - see 1994
1977 Amnesty International - we all know what most Yanks think of them
1973 Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho...

I'd cheerfully shoot the bastard if he set foot in the UK :D

Hey man ? are you series ? Yithak rabin terroist ? shimon peres ?

**** you are crzy....

[GazB]

"So, basically, the destiny of the UN is to polarize the world and provide that opposite pole to challenge the authority of the Imperialist Yanks. "

Would you prefer it was policeman to the world? Who do you think would have to fund it? Wouldn't those funding it expect special treatment... or even a large measure of control? Would that not make it an instrument used by whoever is on top at the time? Lots of nutters in the US fear black helos and UN troops in the US. The reality is that the rest of the world has more to fear from the US than the US has to fear from the rest of the world.

The UN is an international forum for discussion and group action where there is agreement. It cannot and will not solve all of the worlds problems or disputes... ever. Some it might solve but even that takes time.

"Again with the money spending...maybe if New Zealand start on a road of empire building and capitalist ventures, then maybe 100% of their income might be close to about 0.00000001% of the American's income."

Oh yes, America is right because it has lots of money. Sorry I forgot masta Seiyuuki sir, I'll just go out and start picking more cotton sir, sorry to be bothering you.

"The UN has been in the ****ter for a long time, but when it installs a terrorist nation (Syria) on the security council then it has gotten real bad."

And if you start excluding countries because they support groups you don't support where to stop? Should the British demand the US is kicked off the UN for its support of the IRA?

"The point is, U.N. is an appeasement and weak willed organization."

Or is it a democratic organisation where every country only gets one vote and the West has found it can't get its way all the time now because of internal divisions and the distance between the west and the rest of the world?

"They do not like conflict and run when it gets tough."

They who?

"I can understand why they left Iraq, but Afghanistan?"

Iraq is safer than Afghanistan. There are far more US/UK forces in Iraq than currently in Afghanistan.

"Perhaps North Korea or China will emerge as our new big enemy and then people will come down and side with the US once more. If not because they like us but at least its the lesser evil. "

Is it? When was the last time NK or China bombed a country because its interests were involved?

"Thats OK though, I'm sure its the US's fault."

Well if you spend less than 1/3rd of what you spent on trying to get the Soviets out in the 80s rebuilding the place and creating infrastructure and education like the Soviets were trying to do then you might actually do some good. Compared to the Taleban the Soviets were a huge step forward for the Afghans, but you didn't care... it was all about commies... now you're breaking your backs to kiss their asses (1.5 billion potential coca cola drinking jean wearing chinese).

"The question of who will organize international emergency action when the United States is unwilling to do so remains unanswered."

You have two options... use the media really well like the KLA did, or find oil on your country.

"Hey man ? are you series ? Yithak rabin terroist ? shimon peres ?"

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

"The UN appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee. Only 3 countries voted against: US, Canada and Guatemala. European countries abstained."

Only the west thinks Libya is bad. Libya is one of the few countries in that region that looks after its own interests first and is not lead by a corrupt leader that would sell out his people for money. (ie Kuwaite, Saudi Arabia, etc etc). It makes it bad in the west because he can't be reliably controlled... this was Saddams ultimate crime too.

[Mark Sman]

http://www.pixelzone.com/pixelzone/newspix/image/lockerbie.jpg

[aktarian]

http://www.pixelzone.com/pixelzone/newspix/image/lockerbie.jpg

Iran air flight 655?

[Mark Sman]

Nope, this one wasn't an unfortunate accident.

[aktarian]

Nope, this one wasn't an unfortunate accident.Neither was Iran air.

[Mark Sman]

Neither was Iran air.
What, you thnk the USS Vincennes fired knowing it was civillian craft? I doubt it.

[Mark Sman]

When was the last time NK or China bombed a country because its interests were involved?

In NK's case probably been awhile. Oh say the last time U.N. forces had to kick em out of South Korea. But hey that one only cost a few million lives. That must be why everyone who lives there loves it so much.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Bookend-Akiko/3973/north-korea-asylum2002.jpg

China, hmmmmm, when they invaded India, Tibet, Vietnam a few times



And if you start excluding countries because they support groups you don't support where to stop? Should the British demand the US is kicked off the UN for its support of the IRA?

Dude, you have to let the smoke out after you inhale. IRA , PIRA, RIRA, INLA blah blah blah have been listed as terrorists in the US forever. They arrested a few of these guys down by me last year. Nobody here wants those knuckleheads around. We have bozos in this country who support Islamic Jihad, Red Brigade, ETA, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers and the Teletubbies. If Americans are likely to support some crap like that they would probably back something closer to home like the KKK or somesuch.
Although some of the jackass comments I've seen in here would indicate that intentional ignorance is alive and well worldwide. These groups will have no problem recruiting muppets in the future.


but you didn't care... it was all about commies
It was all about southern ocean access. We would have been at all out war before that. Sucker punching them in Afghanistan was cheap and easy.


Lots of nutters in the US fear black helos and UN troops in the US.
Their numbers are small, thank christ, but they get alot of press. Mostly because a bored reporter can get a crazy quote with one phone call. I'm not worried about UN troops, or the troops of any country at all. If had a choice tonight between planning for a UN invasion or tire bowling, lets bowl.


One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Unfortunately true.

[aktarian]

Neither was Iran air.
What, you thnk the USS Vincennes fired knowing it was civillian craft? I doubt it.

Are you saying that Aegis cruiser, ship designed to defend USN carriers from massive anti-ship missile attack mistook airliner with F-14 fighter? If they have such ****ty radars to do that be gratefull they didn't have to defend carrier from Soviet attack.

[Durandal]

Isn't this how it's done today? So what exactlly would change?

What are you talking about? Are you telling me you cannot see a difference between NOT having a military and having a military?

[Durandal]

Only the west thinks Libya is bad. Libya is one of the few countries in that region that looks after its own interests first and is not lead by a corrupt leader that would sell out his people for money...

Hahahah that was great. I thought I was readinig some sort of Russian/East Block opinion on Lybia...."Our oppressed Brothers fight against Imperialism" and all that...that was great.

Lybia was one of the few terrorist states that was directly dealt with by the United States during the 80s. It was also one of the few terrorist states that suddenly stopped doing these acts (though many people question this, no proof has been found).

Yeah tell that to Chad. Or Europeans that, while trying to spend thier lives in peace were constantly being attacked seemingly randomly by terrorists from the Med.

[aktarian]

Isn't this how it's done today? So what exactlly would change?

What are you talking about? Are you telling me you cannot see a difference between NOT having a military and having a military?

You said you don't want UN to have it's own military. So how is future UN without it's own military different than today's UN without their own military?

[pinkeye]

the u.n. is essential. those who claim otherwise are bloody ignorant:

Major UN achivements:


Maintaining peace and security - By having deployed a total of 42 peace-keeping forces and observer missions as of September 1996, the United Nations has been able to restore calm to allow the negotiating process to go forward while saving millions of people from becoming casualties of conflicts. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars.

Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and South Africa. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results.

Promoting development - The UN system has devoted more attention and resources to the promotion of the development of human skills and potentials than any other external assistance effort. The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion. The UN Development Programme (UNDP), in close cooperation with over 170 Member States and other UN agencies, designs and implements projects for agriculture, industry, education, and the environment. It supports more than 5,000 projects with a budget of $1.3 billion. It is the largest multilateral source of grant development assistance. The World Bank, at the forefront in mobilizing support for developing countries worldwide, has alone loaned $333 billion for development projects since 1946. In addition, UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

Promoting human rights - Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped enact dozens of comprehensive agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints of human rights abuses, the UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure to be brought on governments to improve their human rights records.

Protecting the environment - The United Nations has played a vital role in fashioning a global programme designed to protect the environment. The "Earth Summit," the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on biodiversity and climate change, and all countries adopted "Agenda 21" - a blueprint to promote sustainable development or the concept of economic growth while protecting natural resources.

Preventing nuclear proliferation - The United Nations, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted for military purposes.

Promoting self determination and independence - The United Nations has played a role in bringing about independence in countries that are now among its Member States.

Strengthening international law - Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed, have been enacted through the efforts of the United Nations.

Handing down judicial settlements of major international disputes - By giving judgments and advisory opinions, the International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, the right of asylum, rights of passage and economic rights.

Ending apartheid in South Africa - By imposing measures ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system, which the General Assembly called "a crime against humanity." Elections were held in April 1994 in which all South Africans were allowed to participate on an equal basis, followed by the establishment of a majority government.

Providing humanitarian aid to victims of conflict - More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 1951 in a continuing effort coordinated by the United Nations that often involves other agencies. There are more than 19 million refugees, mostly women and children, who are receiving food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance.

Aiding Palestinian refugees - Since 1950, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has sustained four generations of Palestinians with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

Alleviating chronic hunger and rural poverty in developing countries - The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has developed a system of providing credit, often in very small amounts, for the poorest and most marginalised groups that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

Focusing on African development - For the United Nations, Africa continues to be the highest priority. In 1986, the United Nations convened a special session to drum up international support for African economic recovery and development. The United Nations also has instituted a system-wide task force to ensure that commitments made by the international community are honoured and challenges met. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs. It is expected that these new enterprises will either earn or save some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.

Promoting women's rights - A long term objective of the United Nations has been to improve the lives of women and to empower women to have greater control over their lives. Several conferences during the UN-sponsored International Women's Decade set an agenda for the advancement of women and women's rights for the rest of the century. The UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) have supported programmes and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries. They include credit and training, access to new food-production technologies and marketing opportunities, and other means of promoting women's work.

Providing safe drinking water - UN agencies have worked to make safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

Eradicating smallpox - A 13-year effort by the World Health Organization resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox from the planet in 1980. The eradication has saved an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring, almost three times the cost of eliminating the scourge itself. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western hemisphere, with global eradication expected by the year 2000.

Pressing for universal immunization - Polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis still kill more than eight million children each year. In 1974, only 5 per cent of children in developing countries were immunized against these diseases. Today, as a result of the efforts of UNICEF and WHO, there is an 80 per cent immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million childrean each year.

Reducing child mortality rates - Through oral rehydration therapy, water and sanitation and other health and nutrition measures undertaken by UN agencies, child mortality rates in the developing countries have been halved since 1960, increasing the life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

Fighting parasitic diseases - Efforts by UN agencies in North Africa to eliminate the dreaded screw worm, a parasite that feeds on human and animal flesh, prevented the spread of the parasite, which is carried by flies, to Egypt, Tunisia, sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. A WHO programme also has saved the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.

Promoting investment in developing countries - The United Nations, through the efforts of the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), has served as a "match-maker" for North-South, South-South and East-West investment, promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.

Orienting economic policy toward social need - Many UN agencies have emphasized the need to take account of human needs in determining economic adjustment and restructuring policies and programmes, including measures to safeguard the poor, especially in areas of health and education, and "debt swaps for children."

Reducing the effects of natural disasters - The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has spared millions of people from the calamitous effects of both natural and man-made disasters. Its early warning system, which utilizes thousands of surface monitors as well as satellites, has provided information for the dispersal of oil spills and has predicted long-term droughts. The system has allowed for the efficient distribution of food aid to drought regions, such as southern Africa in 1992.

Providing food to victims of emergencies - Over two million tons of food are distributed each year by the World Food Programme (WFP). Nearly 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance in 1994.

Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land mines from former battlefields in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia that still kill and maim thousands of innocent people every year.

Protecting the ozone layer - The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have been instrumental in highlighting the damage caused to the earth's ozone layer. As a result of a treaty, known as the Montreal Protocol, there has been a global effort to reduce chemical emissions of substances that have caused the depletion of the ozone layer. The effort will spare millions of people from the increased risk of contracting cancer due to additional exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Curbing global warming - Through the Global Environment Facility, countries have contributed substantial resources to curb conditions that cause global warming. Increasing emissions from burning fossil fuels and changes in land use patterns have led to a build-up of gases in the atmosphere, which experts believe can lead to a warming of the Earth's temperature.

Preventing over-fishing - The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) monitors marine fishery production and issues alerts to prevent damage due to over-fishing.

Limiting deforestation and promoting sustainable forestry development - FAO, UNDP and the World Bank, through a Tropical Forests Action Programme, have formulated and carried out forestry action plans in 90 countries.

Cleaning up pollution - UNEP led a major effort to clean up the Mediterranean Sea. It encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50 per cent of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.

Protecting consumers' health - To ensure the safety of food sold in the market place, UN agencies have established standards for over 200 food commodities and safety limits for more than 3,000 food containers.

Reducing fertility rates - The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), through its family planning programmes, has enabled people to make informed choices, and consequently given families, and especially women, greater control over their lives. As a result, women in devloping countries are having fewer children - from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. In the 1960s, only 10 per cent of the world's families were using effective methods of family planning. The number now stands at 55 per cent.

Fighting drug abuse - The UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) has worked to reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.

Improving global trade relations - The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to obtain special trade preferences for developing countries to export their products to developed countries. It has also negotiated international commodities agreements to ensure fair prices for developing countries. And through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which has now been supplanted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations has supported trade liberalization, that will increase economic development opportunities in developing countries.

Promoting economic reform - Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.

Promoting worker rights - The International Labour Organization (ILO) has worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labour. And by setting safety standards, ILO has helped reduce the toll of work-related accidents.

Introducing improved agricultural techniques and reducing costs - With assistance from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) that has resulted in improved crop yields, Asian rice farmers have saved $12 million on pesticides and governments over $150 million a year in pesticide subsidies.

Promoting stability and order in the world's oceans - Through three international conferences, the third lasting more than nine years, the United Nations has spearheaded an international effort to promote a comprehensive global agreement for the protection, preservation and peaceful development of the oceans. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994, lays down rules for the determination of national maritime jurisdiction, navigation on the high seas, rights and duties of coastal and other states, obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, cooperation in the conduct of marine scientific research and preservation of living resources.

Improving air and sea travel - UN agencies have been responsible for setting safety standards for sea and air travel. The efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have contributed to making air travel the safest mode of transportation. To wit: In 1947, when nine million travelled, 590 were killed in aircraft accidents; in 1993 the number of deaths was 936 out of the 1.2 billion airline passengers. Over the last two decades, pollution from tankers has been reduced by as much as 60 per cent thanks to the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Protecting intellectual property - The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides protection for new inventions and maintains a register of nearly 3 million national trademarks. Through treaties, it also protects the works of artists, composers and authors world-wide. WIPO's work makes it easier and less costly for individuals and enterprises to enforce their property rights. It also broadens the opportunity to distribute new ideas and products without relinquishing control over the property rights.

Promoting the free flow of information - To allow all people to obtain information that is free of censorship and culturally unbiased, UNESCO has provided aid to develop and strengthen communication systems, established news agencies and supported an independent press.

Improving global communications - The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has maintained and regulated international mail delivery. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfeterred flow of information around the globe.

Empowering the voiceless - UN-sponsored international years and conferences have caused governments to recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making, such as the aging, children, youth, homeless, indigenous and disabled people.

Establishing "children as a zone of peace" - From El Salvador to Lebanon, Sudan to former Yugoslavia, UNICEF pioneered the establishment of "Days of Tranquillity" and the opening of "Corridors of Peace" to provide vaccines and other assistance desperately needed by children caught in armed conflict.

Generating worldwide commitment in support of the needs of children - Through UNICEF's efforts, the Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force as international law in 1990 and has become law in 166 countries by the end of September 1994; following the 1990 World Summit for Children convened by UNICEF, more than 150 governments have committed to reaching over 20 specific measurable goals to radically improve children's lives by the year 2000.

Improving education in developing countries - As a direct result of the efforts of UN agencies, over 60 per cent of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 90 per cent of children in these countries attend school.

Improving literacy for women - Programmes aimed at promoting education and advancement for women helped raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 per cent in 1970 to 56 per cent in 1990.

Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites - Ancient monuments in 81 countries including Greece, Egypt, Italy, Indonesia and Cambodia, have been protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.

Facilitating academic and cultural exchanges - The United Nations, through UNESCO and the United Nations University (UNU), have encouraged scholarly and scientific cooperation, networking of institutions and promotion of cultural expressions, including those of minorities and indigenous people.

[Argyll]

Pan Am flight 103 blown up by the Libyans over Lockerbie,Scotland!

[Trident-za]

Good post Pinkeye. Although the UN is not perfect (and never will be), it does a lot of good for millions of people on this planet. They might not "solve" every problem that arises, but they contribute a hell of a lot... there are millions of extremely poor people around the world who are grateful for the UN.

[StarvingStudent47]

Hey man ? are you series ? Yithak rabin terroist ? shimon peres ?

f*** you are crzy....

That's what I was thinking too. Rabin and Peres terrorists?! WTF?! You wanna explain that comment, Royal?

[Royal]

As I've already explained in my PM to UoUo, frankly I can't be arsed.

There is no point having a reasoned argument with most Isreali's (or many Americans) over the actions of 'Isreal' from the 1940's onwards. I freely admit that the Pals have commited as many if not more acts of terrorism, but that does not excuse the Isrealis.

Anyway, I have no desire to get into a flame war/pissing contest - if you don't like what I say, tell me (I won't be surprised) and lets leave it at that.

[pinkeye]

As I've already explained in my PM to UoUo, frankly I can't be arsed.

There is no point having a reasoned argument with most Isreali's (or many Americans) over the actions of 'Isreal' from the 1940's onwards. I freely admit that the Pals have commited as many if not more acts of terrorism, but that does not excuse the Isrealis.

Anyway, I have no desire to get into a flame war/pissing contest - if you don't like what I say, tell me (I won't be surprised) and lets leave it at that.

on a side note, one of my father's uncles served in palestine shortly after ww2 and experienced jewish "terrorism" first-hand. he always hated shamir and friends...

[StarvingStudent47]

As I've already explained in my PM to UoUo, frankly I can't be arsed.

There is no point having a reasoned argument with most Isreali's (or many Americans) over the actions of 'Isreal' from the 1940's onwards. I freely admit that the Pals have commited as many if not more acts of terrorism, but that does not excuse the Isrealis.

Anyway, I have no desire to get into a flame war/pissing contest - if you don't like what I say, tell me (I won't be surprised) and lets leave it at that.

on a side note, one of my father's uncles served in palestine shortly after ww2 and experienced jewish "terrorism" first-hand. he always hated shamir and friends...

We're not talking about Shamir. For that matter, we're not talking about Begin either. UoUo and myself were shocked at the idea of naming two SPECIFIC individuals "terrorists": Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

And don't even start with the "All Israelis are terrorists because 50 years ago a small minority of Israelis did some bad things." That's at least as bad as "all Muslims are terrorists," an implication that both of you would cry "racism" over. Using your sort of reasoning, the retired boxer Muhammad Ali would be detained just like Muhammad Atta. They're both Muslims, right? A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. This is NO different than what you're saying about Israelis.

Yitzhak Rabin was a great man and a dedicated advocate for peace. If anything, his only flaw was being willing to sacrifice too much to try and push a peace measure through. You are the first person I have ever met who would think to call him a "terrorist."

At least I know where you stand. You condemn ALL Israelis, regardless of what they do. That's dandy. Now that that's settled, we can move on.

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets confused, Muhammad Ali is a great man and was the greatest boxer of all time. I'm not saying he actually should be detained. That statement was just to make a point.

[Royal]

Yitzhak Rabin served in the Haganah (a terrorist organisation, fighting against the internationaly agreedUK governance of Palestine). He was Isreali Defence Minister during the illegal invasion of the Lebanon (yes, he also orchestrated the IDF's withdrawal).

In Israel's War of Independence, Shimon Peres was responsible for arms purchases and recruitment (ie IMHO he armed and supplied terrorists). He was Isreali Prime Minister during the illegal invasion of the Lebanon.

I do not condemn all Isrealis (as I said in my initial post) and certainly not for actions '50 years ago' - just those who were involved in them. As I've said, have no desire to get into a flame war/pissing contest - you asked me to explain my views - that's what they are.

[UoUo]

Soory to tell you...but you are big ****ing antijewish....

[S'13]

The escape from Atlit


The Background of the Clandestine Immigration: Both before and after the Holocaust the British Mandate authorities limited the number of Jews that could come to Palestine. This was seen by the Jews both in the country and outside of it as directly inhibiting the fulfillment of the Zionist enterprise. Free aliyah was a central Zionist value both in theory and in practice. Therefore, the Yishuv struggled against this part of British policy (which was spelled out in a number of documents known as "White Papers") actively and without ceasing.
In 1939 the British issued a "White Paper" that stipulated that His Majesty's Government has decided to limit Jewish immigration to 75,000 in the coming 5 years. Between May and September 15,000 "illegals" arrived. As a result, British policy hardened.

During WW II the Jews, for the most part (the Hagana) ceased their struggle against the British and volunteered on the side of the Allies.

The illegal immigration continued during the war. One of the most poignant stories is that of the Sturma, a ship carrying mostly Rumanian refugees. Refused entry by a number of countries, and sent back out to deep water by the Turks, this ship sank in February, 1942, and most of its 770 passengers drowned .

After the War, the struggle continued against the British. On Oct. 10, 1945 the Palmach broke into the illegal immigrant detention camp at Atlit and freed its inhabitants in a bold operation. The Escape from Atlit Before the British established their policy to send most of the Jewish refugees to Cyprus, they often held them at detention camps in Palestine, included Atlit. As mentioned above, the attack here was made in response to British rejection of the call of the Anglo-American Committee to immediately allow 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine.

The plan was set and a number of Palmach soldiers were placed in the camp as Hebrew teachers and sports instructors.

At 01:00 on the Palmach entered the camp. Their entry was made with such stealth that many of the Jews who had been warned of the break had to be awaken. Yitzhak Rabin Z"l, acted as a company commander in the operation. (mem-peh )

There were three roadblocks placed to prevent British reinforcements from arriving. At one of them, a squad of three British policemen pulled up and began shooting. The result of the confrontation was classic: The Arab policeman was killed, the British policeman wounded, and the Jew -- unscathed.

In any event, the population of the camp, just over 200 inhabitants, was freed and made their way up Nasal Oren near by, on their way to Beit HaOren. A convoy of Palmach trucks which was to serve as a decoy made a navigat ional error and drove right into a convoy of British soldiers. The British thus discovered quickly that the escapees were in K. Belt HaOren, and sent police and army to surround the kibbutz and prevent their continued escape.

Meanwhile, word of the escape reached the Jews of Haifa and the surrounding areas, and many of these came and surrounded the British circle. This caused enough confusion that the former prisoners were able to slip through and make their way on foot, largely through Nahal Yagur to Kibbutz Yagur, 5 kms away.

Again, the psychological and military success were tremendous. The Jews had had no casualties, and had only killed one policeman. The entire camp had been freed. The international press went the distance with the story of the plight of the Jewish survivors of the camps, so that the story was once again international front-page news.




One of the many "terrorist" acts carried out by the Hagana and Yitzhak Rabin in particular...
:bash:

[Miles Teg]

What's the name of the son or of a well known man who take part to the Entebee operation.

-- Changing subject, no relation with terrorist act

[UoUo]

What's the name of the son or of a well known man who take part to the Entebee operation.

-- Changing subject, no relation with terrorist act

The brother of former israeli prime minster "Benjamin Netanyahu"

"yoni Netanyahu"


He died in the Entebee operation".

[Miles Teg]

Thanks.

I can conclude it is not a good idea to bother a Israelian politician, they can become military active en efficient.

[Argyll]

Isn't it strange that when someone posts about Isreal's"chequered" past
They get labelled anti Jewish?
What a complex you have there UoUo........whats wrong don't like the facts according to the rest of the World?

[UoUo]

Isn't it strange that when someone posts about Isreal's"chequered" past
They get labelled anti Jewish?
What a complex you have there UoUo........whats wrong don't like the facts according to the rest of the World?

calling peres and rabin terroist is simly anti israeli/jewish...
Peres is one of the most left wing persen in israel...no talking about rabin That was murder cuz he belived in peace...and wanted to give all the land Back to the pal'.....
Calling peres a terroist is a ****ing stupaid thing to said...peres even Never serve in the army...
And like royal said "rabin was command of the lebanon war...if that mean He is a terroist...then tony blair is the 1 of the biggest terroist in the world.



BTW : soory about my ****ing bad english.

[Argyll]

I see what you're getting at but both men belonged to ,at that In the late 40's,time"terrorist" factions.
What Royal said was that Rabin was also resposible for the invasion of Lebanon,which was an act of aggression and was deemed illegal by the rest of the World or something like that.
By claiming he was never in the Army does not mean he could never be a terrorist,most terrorist do not have a military background!


and Tony Blair is not a terrorist he's an arshole!!

No worries about the bad language!! ;)

[UoUo]

So...as i said...if rabin is a terroist cuz Rabin was resposible for the invasion of Lebanon...


soo bush is the mother of terroists...and tony blair also...and also putin...and most of the leader of the world.

[UoUo]

BTW : there is very big diffrence between....a terror act....and freedom act....the jews didn't blow buses full of british children...and didn't killed babies while they are sleeping....

[Miles Teg]

soo bush is the mother of terroists...and tony blair also...and also putin...and most of the leader of the world.

I can't contradict you...

[pinkeye]

As I've already explained in my PM to UoUo, frankly I can't be arsed.

There is no point having a reasoned argument with most Isreali's (or many Americans) over the actions of 'Isreal' from the 1940's onwards. I freely admit that the Pals have commited as many if not more acts of terrorism, but that does not excuse the Isrealis.

Anyway, I have no desire to get into a flame war/pissing contest - if you don't like what I say, tell me (I won't be surprised) and lets leave it at that.

on a side note, one of my father's uncles served in palestine shortly after ww2 and experienced jewish "terrorism" first-hand. he always hated shamir and friends...

We're not talking about Shamir. For that matter, we're not talking about Begin either. UoUo and myself were shocked at the idea of naming two SPECIFIC individuals "terrorists": Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

And don't even start with the "All Israelis are terrorists because 50 years ago a small minority of Israelis did some bad things." That's at least as bad as "all Muslims are terrorists," an implication that both of you would cry "racism" over. Using your sort of reasoning, the retired boxer Muhammad Ali would be detained just like Muhammad Atta. They're both Muslims, right? A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. This is NO different than what you're saying about Israelis.

Yitzhak Rabin was a great man and a dedicated advocate for peace. If anything, his only flaw was being willing to sacrifice too much to try and push a peace measure through. You are the first person I have ever met who would think to call him a "terrorist."

At least I know where you stand. You condemn ALL Israelis, regardless of what they do. That's dandy. Now that that's settled, we can move on.

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets confused, Muhammad Ali is a great man and was the greatest boxer of all time. I'm not saying he actually should be detained. That statement was just to make a point.

you're an idiot for making such groundless accusations. actually, you're a dumbfack for making such ridiculous accusations. learn to fackin' read!! i was referring to a relative's view of one israeli and his colleagues who were members of what he and many others at the time perceived to be a jewish terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of british soldiers, among others. yet you somehow twist this into a blanket assertion on my part that all israelis are terrorists? fack off!!

[UoUo]

I don't get it....

You know wjat the british did for protect the jew from the arabs ? nothing !!!! the arabs murderd jew under the british gov' eyes.....

[aktarian]

BTW : there is very big diffrence between....a terror act....and freedom act....the jews didn't blow buses full of british children...and didn't killed babies while they are sleeping....

coughDeirYassincoughQibyacough


I don't get it....

You know wjat the british did for protect the jew from the arabs ? nothing !!!! the arabs murderd jew under the british gov' eyes.....

As oposed to IDF who prevented Phalangists from masacring Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila? :roll:

[Argyll]

We've been round the block with this one too!
Peres and Rabin both were involved at that time with a group who were commiting acts of terror on the British forces in Palestine,this wass also a time which many Israeli's are not too fond of because of these acts.
No doubt someone will mention the St Davids Hotel?
I'm also curious as to your age UoUo,as I can picture someone in the 14-20 year old bracket,who is an idealist?

Furthermore this topic was about the UN pulling out of Afghanistan,not the pros and cons of what the Israeli's did 50 years ago,it is also not about Paestinian Terrorists either,these Isreal/palestine threads have been beaten to death several times with the end outcome always the same!

Lets get this topic back on track !!