Us Veto Record Since 1972

[NYerRoman]

Veto Record
(UN resolutions that WEREN'T passed b/c of US Veto)

1972-2002
(Russia has used their veto TWICE)

Year and Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in
Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on
Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the
occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France,
China) to insure United Nations decisions on the
maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the
Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in
occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the
quantity and quality of development assistance to
underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear
collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of
South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation
of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled
by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights
violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of
Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in
occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties'
exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United
Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal
or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations
Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in
multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living
conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied
territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Affirms the right of self determination for the
Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South
Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic
Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped
countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of
United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and
individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test
explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing
countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its
economic and social system in accord with the
will of its people, without outside interference
in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests
in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of
nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent
nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote
disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical
and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care,
proper nourishment, national development, etc are
human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring
states, condemns apartheid and attempts to
strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the
Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians,
human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in
Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights
occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of
economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for
the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession
of states in respect to state property, archives
and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear
free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications
order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and
the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper
nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and
the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing
countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics,
and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and
other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics,
and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the
occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade
and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and
neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to
observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against
South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese
civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human
rights, trade, media bias, the environment and
development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions
in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the
League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court
of Justice concerning military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua and a call to end
the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study
the underlying political and economic causes of
terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism
and to differentiate it from the struggle of people
from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international
debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of
mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in
the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and
1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence
of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in
Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict based on earlier UN resolutions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to
the occupied territories.
1995 Affirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by
Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in
East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.



Note: The USSR before 1972 had many more. They vetoed stupid stuff like the admission of countries into the UN after WWII. That's all. I guess still idiots....but stupid ones.

[rogue]

When you cut and paste it's polite to credit your source and give a link if possible.

[rogue]

Here's a link to NYRs list that gives clues as to why the US used it's veto. (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html)

For example:

1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.

Israeli warplanes force an executive jet from Libya to land in Israel, in an effort to capture Abu Nidal, a Palestinian leader. He is not on board and, after interrogation, the passengers are allowed to leave. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning Israel for sky-jacking.

Calling Abu Nidal a Palistinian leader is pretty funny. Wonder what ever happened to ol' Nidal? :D

[Fred Sanford]

so what, it's no big secret that the US and Israel are allies. Wow, great work here. I'm impressed.:rolleyes:

I can't wait till the US goes after Hamas, that will be a great day indeed.

[NYerRoman]

Uhhh...the UN archive is one place that I got this from.
Look there. It has one. It is more objective than the US media. It tells you things.

I saw this on zmag.org. Dissident professors and writers write for Z magazine. It was mentioned.

SOURCED.

[NYerRoman]

Rogue,

Nice try on the slant. It is illegal, you know...against international law, to take down a plane, even if you are looking for someone.

That's why the resolution was presented.
.......hellllllllllllloooooooooooo.

[Merryprankster]

Apparently, Abu Nidal committed suicide in Iraq by shooting himself in the head. Four times.

Context? Just curious.

[Jamesbond_007]

but it is NOT ILLEGAL to start a world war and join the Nazi's in world war II, like Italy, huh NYerRoman?

Very smart!!!!

[GLW]

Considering that the UN did NOT exist during WWII..what was the point?

Considering that the Nuremberg trials were SUPPOSED to take care of all apprehended war criminals, to condemn a person for serving in WWII after they lost, no matter what you thought of their side, is sort of like the way the north TRIED but failed to condemn those people that served in the Confederacy during the US Civil War. They were eventually allowed full citizenship and many even served in political / public office after Reconstruction.

But...if you insist on dredging that type of thing up, why not condemn a large part of the Israeli governement since many of them were terrorists in their younger days....

Or condemn the US government officials for supporting folks like Noriega, Hussein, etc... in the 50's through the 90's....

The point of the posting was to show how UN resolutions are sometimes political - obvious...but also how many of them have been vetoed by the US - even though they were GOOD ideas...and no reason or mention of the veto is ever made to the American public.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Apparently, Abu Nidal committed suicide in Iraq by shooting himself in the head. Four times.

Context? Just curious.

Well, could have been like muscle spasms after died or even rigor mortis :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Jamesbond_007
but it is NOT ILLEGAL to start a world war and join the Nazi's in world war II, like Italy, huh NYerRoman?

Very smart!!!!

Idiot.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Jamesbond_007
but it is NOT ILLEGAL to start a world war and join the Nazi's in world war II, like Italy, huh NYerRoman?

Very smart!!!!

And I guess you also still follow the believe that the US forces destroyed the german army and NOT the Russians at the Eastern front.

If it weren't for the US intervention in WW II Russia might be running Europe now.

Have fun.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


And I guess you also still follow the believe that the US forces destroyed the german army and NOT the Russians at the Eastern front.

If it weren't for the US intervention in WW II Russia might be running Europe now.

Have fun.

Actually to be really accurate, wasn't it the Russian Winter that destroyed the German army (and Napoleon's army for that matter)? :)

[Budokan]

Yep. The Battle for Moscow opened the coffin and dumped the Germans into it. The Battle for Stalingrad hammered in the final nail in the Nazi coffin.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe


Actually to be really accurate, wasn't it the Russian Winter that destroyed the German army (and Napoleon's army for that matter)? :)

Yes, and no.

They would have suceeded if their supply lines would not have been cut by Yugoslav & greek resitance fighters.

Those very same greek resitance fighters also prevented germany from spreading into that direction.

One problem that killed the german Army was that their troops were fell fed during peace times, but poorly during campaigns.

[joedoe]

So the implication is that the Germans had trouble dealing with the lack of food and this lessened their effectiveness?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
So the implication is that the Germans had trouble dealing with the lack of food and this lessened their effectiveness?

Ever heard the expression:
"An Army fights on it's stomach".

Well-fed and supplied troops always are at their strongest.

Why do you think that the sub-crews in the US got the best food and chefs, in order to keep morale up.

At the moment I see the coalitian troops making one mistake, bypassing cities with enemy troops in them in order to get to Baghdad fast.

This leaves their supply lines vulnerable to guerrilla type attacks.

Seeya.

P.S.: Back home we got a slightly different saying:
"Without hay the best horse can't produce a ****."

[joedoe]

OK, I understand. I just thought that you were making a distinction between an army the is well fed during peace vs an army that is not well fed during peace and how they handle the lack of food during war.

WRT to current push - I agree about the danger to the supply lines, but I also feel there is a danger of a flanking movement by the Iraqis. Obviously we don't have all the intel, and surely Tommy Franks would not be stupid enought to let himself be flanked, but the way they are racing towards Baghdad certainly leaves this possibility open.

[Laughing Cow]

Joedoe.

Yes, I made that distinction and feel it holds true.

The average soldier in your average army during war time is a drafted civilian and not a professional soldier.

Small things like "white gold(toilet paper)", cigarettes, warm meals and so on adopt a new value.

[joedoe]

True enough - I often wonder how I would deal with being thrown into a war situation, and my conclusion every time is 'not well'.

[Laughing Cow]

FWIW.

I read somewhere today that some US Men's magazines will be shipping free issues down to the gulf.

I think one was called maxim or so.
:D :D

Found it again:

Oddly Enough - Reuters
Publishers Send Free Magazines to Awe Troops
Wed Mar 26, 9:34 AM ET
Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) will soon be able to adorn their quarters with the 21st Century's answer to World War II pin-ups, as the publisher of Maxim and Stuff ships free copies of the men's lifestyle magazines to their mailboxes.



Dennis Publishing said it hopes its scantily clad cover models will help U.S. soldiers endure war in the same way the curvy girls drawn by Peruvian-born artist Alberto Vargas became one of the biggest morale-boosters among servicemen in the 1940's.

Dennis Publishing said on Tuesday it is shipping 15,000 free copies of Maxim, Stuff and its musical magazine Blender to 40 different military tent sites across Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Oman.

Meanwhile Time Inc.'s Sports Illustrated is also making arrangements to send copies of its two latest issues on college basketball and baseball to soldiers in Iraq and surrounding areas.

"We are trying to get between 3,000 and 5,000 copies sent over," a spokesman for the magazine said. Another Time Inc. favorite, celebrity magazine People, could follow.

Playboy Enterprises Inc. will not send copies of its legendary namesake magazine to the front. Instead, the company plans to set up an e-mail address where U.S. servicemen around the world can sign up to receive non-nude pictures and a message from the famed Playmates.

Publishers are also reaching to the G.I. Janes.

Long before the war started, Hearst Corp. sent issues of its Marie Claire magazine along with skin care products to a dozen of female soldiers in the front after receiving a letter from them asking for some entertainment material.

The publisher said it will also be shipping copies of its Good Housekeeping title soon.

[rogue]

Rogue,
Nice try on the slant. It is illegal, you know...against international law, to take down a plane, even if you are looking for someone.

That's why the resolution was presented.
.......hellllllllllllloooooooooooo.


.......hellllllllllllloooooooooooo back

The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable "because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter." Quoted from http://www.al-bushra.org/temp/veto.htm

Let's look at the folk on that Libyan Learjet, a bunch of thugs on their way back from a "Let's eradicate Isreal" jamboree put on by Mohamar Khadaffi. While it is against international law to force down a plane while it's in international airspace it's also illegal to kill Isreali tourists in Larnaca and to hijack a cruise ship (Achille Lauro) and it's called piracy. It's also against international law to roll a wheelchair and it's crippled American occupant into the Mediterranean and that's called murder. Israel acted with restraint since they didn't harm the plane or passengers. While I don't agree with everything Isael does I do agree with their handling of terrorists.

[joedoe]

It does raise an interesting quesiton though. We know that terrorists do not sunscribe to international law, or even the conventional rules of war as we know it. But does that mean that our governments are then justified in breaking those laws in pursuing those terrorists?

I am not having a go at anyone - this really is just a rhetorical question.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by joedoe
Obviously we don't have all the intel, and surely Tommy Franks would not be stupid enought to let himself be flanked, but the way they are racing towards Baghdad certainly leaves this possibility open.

I don't know. The much vaunted "shock & awe" tactic turned out to be something of a flop with regards to Saddam and his reaction to it. The American gung ho attitude might yet get them bitten in the arse.

Let's just hope that they do have good intel and common sense somewhere in the chain of command.

[David Jamieson]

carefully defined

rogue, abu nidal was not on the plane.

They (those who ordered the skyjack) were guessing based on prejudice.

Or

Their human intelligence sources are severly lacking at best.

In which case...

well, you know where I'm going with this :D

cheers

[Serpent]

What? Intelligence sources severely lacking?

Surely not!

[rogue]

More along the lines of faulty interogation techniques KL.:D They were told that both Nidal and Ahmed Jibril were on the plane. But they had fun scaring the poop out of the delegates anyway.
It does raise an interesting quesiton though. We know that terrorists do not sunscribe to international law, or even the conventional rules of war as we know it. But does that mean that our governments are then justified in breaking those laws in pursuing those terrorists? As long as innocents don't get hurt too often and they don't get caught. But then it's all hypothetical right?;)

[joedoe]

True, it was a hypothetical question - I am not trying to trap anyone into saying something nasty about any nation. So do you think the same applies to police investigations? Should the police be allowed to break the law in the pursuit of criminals?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Should the police be allowed to break the law in the pursuit of criminals?

NO, never.

[rogue]

I'll answer you later, I'm watching "The Shield".

[Serpent]

Originally posted by joedoe
True, it was a hypothetical question - I am not trying to trap anyone into saying something nasty about any nation. So do you think the same applies to police investigations? Should the police be allowed to break the law in the pursuit of criminals?

There's actually a term for that. It's called "Positive Corruption".

Can you believe that!?

[joedoe]

Wow. Interesting term - sounds like an oxymoron. I thought the very meaning of the word corruption had a negative connotation.

See this is an interesting area of thought for me. On the one hand, it seems silly that governments be restricted by rules while terrorists run rampant and are not bound by the same rules. However on the other hand, when governments disregard the rules then we run the risk of degenerating into total anarchy. Or do we?

Feel free to point out where my logic may be flawed, as it often seems to be.

[Serpent]

It's a case of "going down to their level" on the one hand, which has moral and ethical considerations and a case of following a set pattern of rules of engagement (be it military, law enforcement, etc.) which keeps those bodies in line and that's a practical rather than moral consideration to avoid bad corruption.

There is a massive grey area however, and it depends from which angle you look at it, or both.

[Merryprankster]

Kung Lek,

Massad (or is it Mossad?) is probably THE premier intelligence organization on the planet. Calling their HUMINT "severely lacking," is arguably one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. In this instance, their sources were obviously wrong.

It happens--but to categorically argue that their "humint sources ARE severely lacking," based on one example is just dumb.

Serpent--While intelligence does "lack" in some areas (and I will be the first to admit it), what is usually the problem is a disconnect between perceptions about what intelligence is and what it means, vice what it ACTUALLY is and what it means.

Intelligence isn't about acting on specific pieces of information. It's about acting on patterns determined by analysis. Every now and then you get a useful specific piece of information, but that is very very very rare.

[Merryprankster]

Also, does anybody know WHERE the fighters intercepted the plane in question? If it was over their own airspace, then they have every right in the world to force the plane down. It's THEIR airspace and if they really believed Nidal was on the plane, that's an articulable threat to their security.

[Merryprankster]

Rogue,

I'd like to thank you for that excellent link that provides some CONTEXT to the list NYer tried to fob off without background.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
It's THEIR airspace and if they really believed Nidal was on the plane, that's an articulable threat to their security.

Nope you are wrong there.
Airplanes are considered an extension of the country that owns them, same as ships, etc.
otherwise how could children born on an US-plane in midflight claim US citizenship??

Granted not as legal as Embassies or similar, but still part of a sovereign nation.

Also national space has an upper and lower limit, not too sure how many km's but it does exist.
Same as the 3 mile limit for oceans.

Cheers.

[rogue]

The Libyan Learjet was in international airspace heading for Syria.

[rogue]

I'd like to thank you for that excellent link that provides some CONTEXT to the list NYer tried to fob off without background. Your're welcome. When researching this stuff I try to find sites that are pro-NYRs argument but give some context to the argument that he leaves out. I could quote World Net Daily but I'd rather use sources that my opponent may find more credible.

[bodhitree]

Hey
What do you all think about The company **** Cheney used to be CEO of getting the bid to rebuild Iraq, The OIL company he used to be CEO of. Rebuild while were still bombing, disgusting

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
The Libyan Learjet was in international airspace heading for Syria.

Point being Libyan Learjet.
;)

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough, LC. Looks a lot like admiralty law, actually.

[rogue]

I mentioned the Lears Libyan ownership because at that time the Libyans were one of the leading supporters of terrorism in the Middle-East and Europe. So for them yell about air piracy is just hilarious.

[NYerRoman]

Rogue and Merryprankster,

From Merry to Rogue:

I'd like to thank you for that excellent link that provides some CONTEXT to the list NYer tried to fob off without background


I already wrote that it is from the UN archives. Read the thread before shooting your mouths off.
Riiiiiiiiiight. According to Americans the UN is "background"-less.

Sorry it didn't come from CNN. It would have never in the first place. Especially now with Pentagon "observers" there.
Can't let Americans know this...

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


Nope you are wrong there.
Airplanes are considered an extension of the country that owns them, same as ships, etc.
otherwise how could children born on an US-plane in midflight claim US citizenship??

Granted not as legal as Embassies or similar, but still part of a sovereign nation.

Also national space has an upper and lower limit, not too sure how many km's but it does exist.
Same as the 3 mile limit for oceans.

Cheers.

Actually, a child born on an airplane in international airspace may claim citizenship of any country they wish. Apparently that is why, aside from any medical reasons, pregnant women past about 6 months of pregnancy are usually not allowed to fly on international flights.

[rogue]

NYRoman,
What I mean by naming the source is to give a link to it's point of origin if at all possible, or if it's not on the net then give the publications name and author. I have found what you've been posting of late by picking a sentence from your post and searching for it on google. Most of the time it's the same list of "horrors" with the same obscure source, the UN archives for example, that is used but without any details of that source or where and how the information may be found. If you're going to argue about something you're passionate about you should also be ready to back up your statements with facts or at the very least personal experience.

[NYerRoman]

Clap clap clap Rogue.

The google reference was additional info regarding the Sandinistas in Nicaragua....NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE I WROTE.

....and it's not google I use as a search.

UN archives....say it with me...UN archives. BBC I reference too, or is that not too American for ya. It's close. But I reference European press....but they're too Euro. Not American at all.
Or at least not enough. Sorry to live out of your bubble.

[Serpent]

You know how Americans are, Kiki. They all love to travel,
and then they only want to meet other Americans and talk about
how hard it is to get a decent hamburger.
From Naked Lunch (1991)


LOL.

:D

[Merryprankster]

Here's an example of something without context, NYerRoman:

"Joe Schmoe, 32, killed John Doe today."

Pretty ****ing--sounds like Joe Schmoe is guilty of murder...

Here's an example of something IN context.

"Joe Schmoe, 32, killed John Doe after Mr. Doe pulled a gun on him and shot him twice in the thigh. Mr. Schmoe managed to wrestle Mr. Doe to the ground, and control the weapon. In the ensuing struggle, the Mr. Schmoe discharged a round into Mr. Doe's chest. Mr. Schmoe attempted to plug the wound and resuscitate Mr. Doe, but to no avail."

Catch the difference? The UN Archives are great for telling me the U.S. vetoed something--and really crappy at telling me the circumstances surrounding that veto.

Or is that too tough for you to get?

[Serpent]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[NYerRoman]

(my response pasted from other thread)
I do it b/c it's time we start looking outside the US for info and understanding the world. I post things NOT to be a pain in the butt BUT to show that there is info that is known, reported, written about, etc.... and is not made available in the US.

Yet we make decisions and everyone has an opinion about things, big things, like war and how cool the US is...and yet there is so much more that the US does.

How do you keep consensus in the US? Don't tell the people.

The horrible thing that happens in Europe...I can say that b/c I live here...is that it is harder to hide these things due to press, proximity of other countries and their press and TV, etc.
That's why Europeans take to the streets and yell like hell.

And if you really need to know, much of the facts come from writers, journalists and professors that take the time to research these things. Mostly b/c the Freedom of Information Act allows them too.
Do you all have time to sit through the archives and read every single document?
Plus some facts do not need to be sourced.
EXAMPLE: the US condemned for international terrorism by the world court. 1986. That is fact. It happened. I remember watching tv then and seeing it. It is talked about by professors, journalists, etc. Why source that really. You can all find it easily if you just looked.

peace brothers and sisters.

[NYerRoman]

(pasted from other thread.)
Also...I have presented facts that contradict US statements and actions.

like Bush telling Iraqis to respect Geneva Convention rules.

And the US??
-They show prisoners on TV.

-Guantanamo Bay prisoners are "hostile combattants" and not prisoners of war. Therefore Geneva Convention does not apply. And therefore they have no rights. You can't re-define someone to keep and torture them.

- Look at the UN resolution list of US vetoes. 1986 the US vetoes a resolution presented that ALL countries of the world abide and respect international law. THAT WAS VETOED?!??!

-Chile (CIA assassinating Allende and putting Pinochet in power)

-Vietnam (can't kill civilians is a GC rule) 3-4 million Vietnamese were killed

etc. etc. The list is long.

I am part of this world and you are too. Everyone is. Hasn't kung fu taught you anything other than forms, punches, kicks?

[rogue]

EXAMPLE: the US condemned for international terrorism by the world court. 1986. That is fact. It happened. I remember watching tv then and seeing it. It is talked about by professors, journalists, etc. Why source that really. You can all find it easily if you just looked.

You've brought that up several times. Who brought up the charges? What was the vote count? What definition of terrorism was used? What was the US doing and why? Please provide a link to the minutes of the hearing.

[Merryprankster]

From the other thread:

NYer,

I get my news from Australia, the BBC, translations of Al Jazeera, translations of Indian and Pakistani Newspapers, and translations of Le Monde. For consistent, well researched reporting, I still rely on the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times (British), and Le Monde. I am hardly poorly informed, nor do I limit my news intake.

What I don't do, is decide on a point of view, then go hunting for information, without context, to back up what I have to say. I don't point my browser to opinion pieces or agenda pieces or "newspapers," with well known slants written by people who are trying to sell you their view. Usually, if I see something that piques my interest I start looking into it on my own. I usually find the situation isn't quite as dire or benign as people want to believe.

Let me give you an example--you and several other people on this board have claimed "it's all about oil." On the other hand, there is a good body of research out there--from think tanks, and other sources--not just "what the CIA said," suggesting that several of the reasons the current administration has articulated why we're there have some standing.

On top of that Nigeria is actually more important to the U.S. as an oil producing nation and several American oil companies are losing vast amounts of revenue because of ethnic tension there. ChevronTexaco has had to almost eliminate production. TotalFinaElf, the French oil company, is taking heavy hits too. The current military dictator cannot keep the tribes from killing each other or taking over the oil fields. The oil in Nigeria is light, sweet, crude--requiring little chemical or steam cracking and requiring little sulfur extraction. It's ideal for processing, which increases profit margins enormously. In addition, recently, deep water surveys have suggested their oil reserves are enormous.

Business HATES disorder. Civil Disorder means the economy doesn't work. It means oil doesn't flow. It means money doesn't get made. If it were all about the oil industry don't you think the United States administration would have been lobbying the U.N. to send "peace keeping," troops to Nigeria, instead of invading Iraq, especially since France would probably get on board? After all, it's all about oil, remember, and TotalFinaElf's profits are in trouble. It makes more sense to me, if it were really all about oil, to send peace keepers to Nigeria, increase our standing as a "humanitarian nation," and manage to make a tidy profit and perhaps install some friendly type folks in the Nigerian admin while we were at it, rather than engage in "Operation **** Off the World?"

If you believe the tenuous circumstantial evidence that oil companies and current administration are smart enough and wily enough to have some sort of giant conspiracy, how is they are too stupid to miss this?

You and several other people have claimed it's all about big oil and that France and Russia are doing the right thing--recognizing U.N. authority, and insisting on continued inspections. However, evidence suggests that there's more to it than "U.N. authority." France, Russia, and Egypt are Iraq's largest trading partners. Russia, in particular, has several oil interests in Iraq, and Iraq owes France and Russia quite a bit of cash --several billions in loans-- as I recall. In 2000, according to Iranian newspapers, over 1/3 of the delegates to an Iraqi Trade Conference were from TotalFinaElf. Other reports indicate that France, China, and Russia sent the most delegates overall. France and Russia have been repeatedly accused of consistently ignoring the U.N. trade embargo with Iraq, and have argued repeatedly in the U.N. for looser interpretation of the embargo's provisions.

Not exactly altruistic is it? Sounds too, like they "pick and choose," what to obey from the U.N. rather than recognizing their "authority."

Again, the problem I have with your "arguments," is that they aren't. You haven't taken the time to do any real research. You haven't bothered to learn anything about the situation. You haven't looked at anything in context. You've regurgitated points that fit with your world view, which I'm guessing hasn't been the result of much independant thought; based on your shoddy research capabilities and inability to articulate your POV. You make some pretty heavy assumptions about what I do and do not support, without ever having asked me. Then too you argue from a sense of smug moral superiority - and it is precisely that which I find intolerable.

[NYerRoman]

You've brought that up several times. Who brought up the charges? What was the vote count? What definition of terrorism was used? What was the US doing and why? Please provide a link to the minutes of the hearing.


DO YOU READ THE THREADS ROGUE? America was condemned for international terrorism (the only country to date!) in 1986. The US ignored the sentence of the World Court.
The UN then tried to sanction the US. NOT!
The UN then tried to pass a resolution forcing all countries to abide by international law.
US VETOES THAT.
Can't have that now.....