That article is a complete load of xenophobic horseshiat. But what else would you expect from that website?

American Wanker.

-1

Really? The UN is composed of mainly anti-Israeli and anti-American bureaucrats? Who'd a thunk it.

Whatever this site says...

meh whatever, I figure I don't give a shiat. We all know this site is farking retarded and meant to pander to the retards in the echo chamber;

The U.N. recognizes its greatest failures in preventing genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Just kidding, they call for a boycott of Israel

UN admits Rwanda genocide failure

Annan Decries Failure To Halt Darfur Killings

Now thats out of the way, the

(TFA) U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto termed the "single greatest failure" of the U.N. - the failure to create a Palestinian state.

is a separate issue. Israel-Palestine is hugely inflammatory worldwide thats knee deep into the UN, Historically , and in resolutions with political ramifications that are far different in these other issues listed in this retarded analog of a headline.

Moreover, with the riots that have been raging in the occupied territories, I find this headline irresponsible.

Moreover, Obama dedicates himself to two-state solution

Way to go, Fark, for greenlighting the silliest headline possible.

Party Boy: The U.N. recognizes its greatest failures in preventing genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Just kidding, they call for a boycott of Israel
UN admits Rwanda genocide failure

Annan Decries Failure To Halt Darfur Killings
Now thats out of the way, the (TFA) U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto termed the "single greatest failure" of the U.N. - the failure to create a Palestinian state. is a separate issue. Israel-Palestine is hugely inflammatory worldwide thats knee deep into the UN, Historically , and in resolutions with political ramifications that are far different in these other issues listed in this retarded analog of a headline.

Moreover, with the riots that have been raging in the occupied territories, I find this headline irresponsible.

Moreover, Obama dedicates himself to two-state solution

Way to go, Fark, for greenlighting the silliest headline possible.

Wasn't the Bush Administration on record as favoring the creation of a Palestinian state as well?

jake_lex: Wasn't the Bush Administration on record as favoring the creation of a Palestinian state as well?

Yes. this gets into some details on the failures there. (sec - if i have time) - bear in mind that series of links is independent of why the UN is so enmeshed in the Israel-palestine question and its separate global ramifications


also

Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories: Statements on American Policy toward Settlements by U.S. Government Officials - 1968-2006

ok jake_lex: Bush Administration

quickly- heres the bush saga on the roadmap and failures.

An Uncertain Road Map (WaPo June 2002)
A Plan Without a Map (NYT June 2002)
• This one has the advantage at least of seeming to better reflect the president's own world view. He placed most of the onus on the Palestinians: The clear message was they shouldn't expect anything -- not a state, not a provisional state, not an Israeli withdrawal -- until they get rid of Yasser Arafat as their leader and clean up their collective act.
• Such a one-sided approach might be appropriate if Israel's government were committed to the two-state vision that Mr. Bush claimed as his own yesterday. After all, the president is right that Mr. Arafat has shown a willingness to use terrorism -- the unacceptable murder of innocent civilians -- to further political goals, and that such terror should not be rewarded. But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has made clear that he sees a two-state solution many years distant at best. His government has shown no inclination to modify the settlement policy that makes an ultimate agreement ever more difficult.

------------
Arafat Wants No. 2 Man In the P.L.O. As the Premier (NYT March 2003)
-----


A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (April 2003 US Dept of State)
-----
U.S. Groups Seek To Cast Peace 'Map' As a Threat (Forward May 2003)

Bush's Maneuvers Bewilder Jerusalem and Activists (Forward June 2003

From determination to wimpiness (Haaretz)

Israel Seals Off Gaza After Brief Opening Meant to Ease Plight of Palestinian Workers (NYT May 2003)

Sharon's Refusal To Accept Plan Vexes Powell Trip; After Visit, Israel Seals Gaza Strip (WaPo May 2003 pg. A.12)
Abstract (Summary)

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell clashed with his Egyptian counterpart today over Israel's refusal to endorse a new U.S.- backed peace plan. Powell said it made "no difference" whether Israel declared that it accepted the doc*ment, but Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, said embracing it was important, remarking that " 'accept' is not a dirty word."

Further complicating the picture during Powell's visit for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the Israeli military imposed the tightest crackdown on travel between Israel and the Gaza Strip since the current Palestinian uprising began in September 2000, closing Gaza's borders to everyone except diplomats and aid workers. Maher indicated the tightened closure undercut earlier gestures announced by Israel to ease Palestinian suffering that Powell had hailed as "very promising."

Powell met Sunday with the new Palestinian Authority prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and [Ariel Sharon] and Abbas have agreed to their first meeting Friday. But Powell refused to meet with the Authority's president and longtime Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. Maher noted that Arafat selected Abbas and said Egypt would continue to meet with him. "We continue to recognize him as the leader of the Palestinian people," he said.

B

No Discussion Of Settlements, Diplomats Say (Forward (May 2003)

American-Israeli Relations Strained Following Attack (Forward June 2003)

Bush Under Fire in Congress for Criticizing Israel (NYT June 2003)

Bush's Shift on Israel Was Swift (WaPo June 2003)


Israel-US rift emerges over security fence issue (JPost June 2003)

PA (Palestinian Authority) paper makes racist, sexist remarks about Condoleeza Rice (JPost June 2003)

Sharon rejects Bush's call to take down 'security' fence (Independent July 2003)
• Mr Sharon met Mr Bush just four days after the President - with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Prime Minister standing beside him - called the fence (more properly a wall) a "problem" that did not help the road-map peace plan being pushed by the United States and other big powers for an overall Middle East settlement by the end of 2005.

Israel to Continue Building Security Fence Criticized by Bush (NYT July 2003)

U.S. May Reduce Aid Plan to Get Israel to Halt Barrier (NYT Aug 2003)

Bush Eases Pressure on Both Sides Over Peace Plan (Forward Aug 2003)
• Seeking to prevent the unraveling of its so-called "road map" to Israeli-Palestinian peace, the Bush administration is scaling back its demands on each side in hopes of making it easier for each of them to comply. The apparent aim is to ease domestic political pressures on the leaders, as well as to defuse charges from each side that the other side is failing to comply.

U.S. Cutting Loan Guarantees To Oppose Israeli Settlements (NYT Sept 2003)
• The action was almost totally symbolic. It came on the same day that Israel sold $1.6 billion of bonds on Wall Street, all backed by a guarantee of repayment by the United States government under legislation passed last spring that provides Israel with up to $3 billion in loan guarantees annually for three years.

It is the first such move the administration has taken against Israel.

U.S. confirms fence prompted loan cuts (Haaretz 11/27/031)
• it was agreed that the United States will trim $289.5 million from the $3 billion in guarantees granted to Israel this year. Washington has granted Israel a total of $9 billion in guarantees over three years.

"The fact is they [the United States] aren't putting any political pressure on us to do anything on the substantive issues of the political process," Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Army Radio yesterday.

skip--skip--


(2008) Rice: Israeli settlements undermining peace talks
Under the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, Israel has pledged to halt all settlement activity. But Olmert has said he would continue building in West Bank settlements that Israel expects to retain under a final peace agreement.

/leaving to watch football place the arguments related to the similarities or dissimilarities of analogs below.

As I'm leaving - I need to point out, thats about 1/10th of the relevant links (abridged) for that roadmap question. then you go to Annapolis...

which is separate from the UN question

/football

I stopped reading here...

That Palestinian-Arab society is producing a Jew-hatred that threatens to overshadow the Jew-hatred of the Nazis

Submitter recognizes his greatest failure is his life. Just kidding, he continues his boycott of reality

tchamber: That article is a complete load of xenophobic horseshiat. But what else would you expect from that website?

American Wanker.

-1

tchamber, Fark posts a lot of stupid stuff. If you don't like it all the stupid right wing stuff and want only stupid left wing stuff, go to Digg.

Given that the state of Israel was created via a U.N. resolution, I think it's a bit rich saying that the U.N. can't seek the same goal for the Palestinians.

Bull.Doze.It.Into.The.River.




Toothless Tiger. Ban Ki-Moon, Sec.General

/What does the US get for its $2 billion per year in dues, I ask you?

Gah, what an ugly post.

Ryan2065: I stopped reading here...

That Palestinian-Arab society is producing a Jew-hatred that threatens to overshadow the Jew-hatred of the Nazis

I guess that places Ehud Olmert (who now recognizes the need for Israel to withdraw to the 1968 borders and give up the Occupied Territories) as about equivalent to Hitler.

Yeah, I think the "American Thinker" is more the "American Drinker"--and they're a mean drunk at that.

michaeld5: /What does the US get for its $2 billion per year in dues, I ask you?

Permission to continue the slaughter of innocents that we would probably do anyways.

thisispete: Given that the state of Israel was created via a U.N. resolution, I think it's a bit rich saying that the U.N. can't seek the same goal for the Palestinians.

The same resolution created Israel and an Arab state, the Arabs rejected it and voted to kill Jews instead.

The UN does a much better job when it sticks to getting out of parking tickets.

Honestly, there's really not much the U.N. can do about Darfur.

To stop the killings, it would require toppling the only government Sudan has had for the past five decades. Almost certainly, intervening in Darfur would mean plunging all of Sudan into another fifty years of civil war.

Humanitarian aid is really about all anyone can do to help. Successful nation building by an occupying power is, even in the best case, a tricky venture. Successful nation building in Sudan, that would border on the miraculous.

There's also the issue that the original purpose of the U.N. is to deal with relations between sovereign nations, not to intervene in the internal affairs of a nation. Of course, the U.N. has grown beyond the boundaries it was originally conceived to have.

Wait, a second. Isn't the U.S a fully paid and charter member of this United Nations you speak of? Why is an organisation that the United States is a major part of, speaking out against Israel?

I thought the UN was created to provide a deliberative forum to prevent WWIII?

1 for 1 on that so far. I wasn't aware that it was supposed to just rubber stamp US foreign policy.

BTW, if we bulldoze it into the river, we'll just have to spend all our time flying around the world to twist people's arms, instead of just grabbing a cab downtown. It's more convenient this way.

The American Taliban ^{(^)} thinks that Israel should set a date to attack Iran.

Seriously subby I can't choose which sucks worse, the United States government or the U.N.

What does the US get for its $2 billion per year in dues, I ask you?

The right to not be an international pariah by being the only sovreign state on Earth to not be in the UN. Remember that now we're going to try NOT pissing off the rest of the world needlessly.

What can you boycott from Israel anyways? Torahs?

Argh2: I thought the UN was created to provide a deliberative forum to prevent WWIII?

1 for 1 on that so far. I wasn't aware that it was supposed to just rubber stamp US foreign policy.

Right here. This, right here. This is the one thing everyone needs to remember. The UN is not meant to take you to heaven, but rather to save you from hell.

Remove all Republicans: With Sudan in charge of the Human Rights Council, how could anyone claim that they are ignoring Darfur? They are the best nation to recognize human rights violations.

lulz

What a

problem with Darfur? Say it is not so.

The UN (Kofi) asked the evil Bush to go stop the war. He didn't bother with Europe, as they have no army to speek of. Could not even show up for the Yugo war.

Bush turned the fun assignment down.

Lets all blame Bush.

You know, I agree we need to protect Israel and that they should be our ally and all, but why the hell do America and Israel act so indignant about it? I mean, Israel did kind of perform a hostile takeover in the heart of Arabia. I'm not sure what kind of response they were expecting.

winterwhile: Bush turned the fun assignment down.

Iraq is more fun

michaeld5: Bull.Doze.It.Into.The.River.

Toothless Tiger. Ban Ki-Moon, Sec.General

/What does the US get for its $2 billion per year in dues, I ask you?

One of the things the US gets is a scapegoat to blame for its own moral failures. Take Rwanda, for example. Do you think that the UN was somehow standing in the way of the US and France, frustrating their desire to prevent genocide?

The UN can only do what its member nations allow it to do. In the case of Rwanda, it was UN officials who were blowing the whistle, UN officials who were calling for more troops to prevent the violence, UN officials who called upon the Security Council to approve an expansion of the UNAMIR mission. It was the US (having presided over a farkup in Somalia and decided that international peacekeeping was bad PR) and France (actively collaborating with the genocide) that put the kibosh on that--actually reducing the size of the UNAMIR forces.

But look--everyone gets to blame the eeeeeeevil UN for their "failures" and the US and France get to walk away scot free. That's worth a few billion in anybody's book.

People who rail against the UN almost without exception have no understanding at all of how it works. They envision a secret world government with legions of troops shuttling around the world in black helicopters.

It's a talking-shop for the world's nations. It's full of incredibly altruistic and hard-working staffers who work day in and day out trying to get the right people together in the right rooms so as to nudge the world a little bit closer to peace and a little bit further from barbarism. It has no power other than the power of pleading and shaming. All the member nations are sovereign nations, and if any of them want to tell the UN to go hang, they can. Furthermore, the members of the Security Council can veto any action at all on a whim.

When the UN farks up, 99 times out of 100 it's because of some selfish decision by a member nation acting in its own perceived interests (and not rarely, that member nation is the US). When it succeeds (as, for example, the millions upon millions of displaced people that it manages to feed every year, the peace processes that it manages to stitch together etc.) it is largely ignored.

beoswulf: thisispete: Given that the state of Israel was created via a U.N. resolution, I think it's a bit rich saying that the U.N. can't seek the same goal for the Palestinians.

The same resolution created Israel and an Arab state, the Arabs rejected it and voted to kill Jews instead.

What a subtle and even-handed account of history you have to offer.

"The American Thinker" gets its own logo here?
Yikes.

Ugh. Tactical facepalm.

"the US gets is a scapegoat to blame for its own moral failures."

What A Fark off.. Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member. No reality is setting in that a CORRUPT UN is nothing but a way to keep money flowing to corrupt governments, with nothing getting to the people.

Give all the money to the Bill Gates foundation if you reaaly want to help the starving.

Gee...reality check on isle 3 please.

winterwhile: Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member.

We torture people.

Give the UN a break. The opportunities for high-dollar bribes have been drastically curtailed since the US terminated the Oil For Food program by invading Iraq, so naturally they're a little out of sorts.

Shaggy_C: winterwhile: Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member.

We torture people.

Well yeah but only brown people, those don't count, right?

I'm new here, am I going to get used to idiots like winterwhile shouting unsupported innanities in broken English all the time?

winterwhile: Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member.

The USA didn't send a single troop to Rwanda, even when genocide was clear. When UNAMIR (after the Belgians withdrew) was left with less than two hundred people, and they were begging for 5,000 troops to help stop the genocide, we said no. Forty nations eventually sent troops, but not the USA.

No reality is setting in that a CORRUPT UN is nothing but a way to keep money flowing to corrupt governments, with nothing getting to the people.

UNAMIR saved tens of thousands of lives in Rwanda, which sadly was only a drop in the bucket of the Rwandan genocide. Had it not been severely understaffed, it might have saved far more.

Shaggy_C: winterwhile: Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member.

We torture people.

But only people who deserve it, so it's OK.

Will someone please explain to me why we're still friends with Israel? I mean,seriously, they've been the worst friends.

Yeah,they started out all noble but now they're douche bags that get us to do their dirty work.

I'm seriously looking for a real and rational explaination here cause i just can't figure it out.

Ryan2065: I stopped reading here...

That Palestinian-Arab society is producing a Jew-hatred that threatens to overshadow the Jew-hatred of the Nazis

You saying it's not true? I mean, the effects are wholly different because the power dynamic is different, but you have to admit that a lot of anti-Jewish bile seems to flood out of the region. Don't you think that some of the people there are worked up to the point they'd be stuffing them into the ovens if they'd had the chance?

That's the problem with the 2-state solution - the Middle-Eastern political scene is filled with so much hatred for Israel (some of it well-deserved) that no Palestinian government will ever be able to crack down on terrorists and rocket-launchers without being attacked by their own public. And if they don't do that, the Israelis will continue to retaliate, often disproportionately, which will keep the fires burning.

Really, if you look at the history of the region, Israel has never had any right answers available to them - only wrong-answers and worse-answers. Some times they choose the wrong answers, some times they choose the worse answers, but the only time there was a "right answer" was when the country was founded, and in that case the "right answer" was to pick some place else where they would be more compatible with the locals.

From that point on, there are no right answers for Israel. They're doomed to an eternity of warfare. And since they're culturally European and democratic, we'll continue to hold them to European standards... and continually watch them fail to live up to them, because they're in a situation that no other culturally-European country is in.

Even without considering the rest of the civilized world tsk-tsking them, they can't win - they're being attacked by civilians, so any retaliation is against civilians, which brings down the ire of the whole populace.

I'm not saying that Israel hasn't crossed the line many, many times. I'm just saying that they're fscked no matter what they do. It's the ultimate double-bind.

Yes, let's get rid of the UN.

Because the past 6,000 years of tribalism, xenophobia, and fear worked out so well!

stpickrell: Yes, let's get rid of the UN.

Because the past 6,000 years of tribalism, xenophobia, and fear worked out so well!

Oh, no! By keeping the UN, we get to pay a couple of $billion a year and still get the tribalism, xenophobia and fear.

It's a win-win.

Can you really blame the Palestinians for being mad that they are 2nd class citizens in their territories? Israel puts these people in struggling ghettos with no chance for improvement. At least let them rise and fall on their own instead of forcing them down under your boots. It's a tricky situation, but the only solution that would work long term is letting them have their territory for their own people. It couldn't be any worse than the situation now.

Sum Dum Gai: winterwhile: Come on the uSA has more morality that any other member.

The USA didn't send a single troop to Rwanda, even when genocide was clear. When UNAMIR (after the Belgians withdrew) was left with less than two hundred people, and they were begging for 5,000 troops to help stop the genocide, we said no. Forty nations eventually sent troops, but not the USA.

No reality is setting in that a CORRUPT UN is nothing but a way to keep money flowing to corrupt governments, with nothing getting to the people.

UNAMIR saved tens of thousands of lives in Rwanda, which sadly was only a drop in the bucket of the Rwandan genocide. Had it not been severely understaffed, it might have saved far more.

If the US had sent in troops we would have been accused of some type of imperialism/invasion/occupation etc. by the hate America crowd.
Liberia is an excellent example:

Back in 2003 when Liberia was in the middle of a frequent West African melt down many of those who advocated our intervention there claimed the only reason we were not sending troops was because they did not have oil

Link (new window)

While Liberia Burned
By Dr. Rufus Sanders
Special to USAfrica The Newspaper, Houston
USAfricaonline.com, The Black Business Journal

"The way in which the United States government has treated the people of Liberia is simply a low down dirty crying shame. We sat back and watched as Monrovia literally burned - and that almost in total silence and blindness. Even while the pleas of the UN and the rest of West Africa and more importantly the Liberian people themselves begged like dogs for the crumbs that fall from a master's table. We waited and waited.
Only now on the eve of a presidential trip to Africa do President Bush shows a reluctant "compassion" or more properly should I say guilt.
How could America be so cold, callous, insolent and heartless of one of the few places it colonized? While Liberia does not have oil and its people are Black; these were not the concerns when just a few decades ago America stripped the nation of its precious rubber commodities and other natural resources."


At the same time the USA haters claimed that the only reason we were sending troops ( a few hundred Marines) was because surprise, surprise Liberia has offshore oil in the Gulf of Guinea:



hands off liberia!

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/liberia.html

"As much as 15 percent of America's oil now comes from West Africa - about the amount imported from Saudi Arabia. By next year, the West African portion is expected to jump to 20 percent. Also, West Africa has long been the playground of French imperialism, who through numerous troop deployments and meddling in the affairs of West African countries, has been able to reap the harvest of the region's natural resources. But now Washington is maneuvering to outflank Paris in its own backyard. It is casting around looking for bases and a foothold from which to dominate existing oil fields, such as those in Nigeria, and to begin exploiting the untapped reserves in the Gulf of Guinea.

The civil war in Liberia is indeed a tragedy, but it won't be ended by U.S. intervention. The U.S. government is not motivated by humanitarian concerns, and the setting up of a pro-U.S. puppet in Monrovia will not end the suffering of the Liberian people."

The same contradictory claims are made about Dafur/Sudan. We do not go in because there is no oil but yes Sudan doe shave oil so if we go in it is to get control of the oil. Some even claimed our motivation for going into the Balkans and Afghanistan was about oil and pipelines despite the reality of the topography and other factors."

What ever the U.S. does somebody is going to biatch. Some have even gone as far a blaming Cheney and Halliburton for Clinton sending troops into the Balkans:

Oil Wars: The Balkans (new window)

Truth be told the US does not have unlimited resources as fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan has illustrated. Even without those wars we could not go about correcting every wrong in the world as the hate America crowd seems to love just labeling it as oppression or an illegal occupation. Like it or not Americas resources should be prioritized into protecting and advancing America's interest first and foremost. Our military was stretched thin during the 90s with all the peace keeping missions in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans (which was only suppose to be for 18 months)etc many under UN command. Remember all the furor of US troops having to wear UN Blue targets.

"One of the fondest expressions around is that we can't be the world's policeman. But guess who gets called when somebody needs a cop." -- Gen. Colin Powel

PlasticMoby: Will someone please explain to me why we're still friends with Israel? I mean,seriously, they've been the worst friends.

Yeah,they started out all noble but now they're douche bags that get us to do their dirty work.

I'm seriously looking for a real and rational explaination here cause i just can't figure it out.

I think mainly for three reasons:

1. The portion of the population that believes God granted that land to the Jews, and support of Israel is the will of God.

2. The portion of society that just doesn't want to admit we made an alliance that is of no benefit to us, and would rather continue than admit they made a mistake.

3. Racial reasons -- either a dislike of Arabs, or sympathy/guilt for the Jews, especially after the Holocaust.

Ah, the UN. The adults' version of make believe.

Why are people still posting in this thread after Party Boy completely ended it?