Hamas founder killed in Israeli airstrike

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-23 12:43am

Joe wrote:
The Kernel wrote:A potential war zone with no US around to keep the peace isn't the sort of stability most of these companies want.
I was unaware of our current presence in said potential war zone.

While not 100% indorsing the Kernel's view, are you trying to say that a complete US 180 on Isarel won't have some major influence on how Israel is viewed and treated in the wider world?

I think you need to familiarise yourself how many times the US has used its veto in the UN stopping resolutions passing against Israel. From memory 35 of the 70 odd vetos were used to shield Israel.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-23 12:53am

Please, UN resolutions are worthless. I've got pieces of UN resolutions in my freakin' stool.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-23 12:55am

Joe wrote:Please, UN resolutions are worthless. I've got pieces of UN resolutions in my freakin' stool.

Yes that's why UN resolutions stopped the WMD armarment in Iraq ... because they are 'useless' ...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-03-23 12:58am

Crown wrote:
Joe wrote:Please, UN resolutions are worthless. I've got pieces of UN resolutions in my freakin' stool.
Yes that's why UN resolutions stopped the WMD armarment in Iraq ... because they are 'useless' ...

I actually agree with Joe, here. UN Resolutions have not been historically followed, in large part because the structure of the UN is so fucked up. Countries like Israel, that have what I would declare "significant" protection from a permanent member of the Security Council, are essentially allowed to ignore the UN with the knowledge that their protector will veto any measures against them, while the General Assembly has practically no actual say in the manner since any one of five countries can immediately throw out anything they attempt to do.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-23 01:04am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Crown wrote:
Joe wrote:Please, UN resolutions are worthless. I've got pieces of UN resolutions in my freakin' stool.
Yes that's why UN resolutions stopped the WMD armarment in Iraq ... because they are 'useless' ...
I actually agree with Joe, here. UN Resolutions have not been historically followed, in large part because the structure of the UN is so fucked up. Countries like Israel, that have what I would declare "significant" protection from a permanent member of the Security Council, are essentially allowed to ignore the UN with the knowledge that their protector will veto any measures against them, while the General Assembly has practically no actual say in the manner since any one of five countries can immediately throw out anything they attempt to do.

Ahh Ossus, the debate was about if America withdrew its support of Israel, so Israel would be one of the 'lesser' countries in the General Assembly without a permenant Security Council big brother to watch out for them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-03-23 01:06am

Crown wrote: Ahh Ossus, the debate was about if America withdrew its support of Israel, so Israel would be one of the 'lesser' countries in the General Assembly without a permenant Security Council big brother to watch out for them.

Right, I agree. However, I also agreed with Joe as to the particular sub-discussion regarding the effectiveness of UN Resolutions. They have not been shown to be effective, in the past.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-23 01:08am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Crown wrote: Ahh Ossus, the debate was about if America withdrew its support of Israel, so Israel would be one of the 'lesser' countries in the General Assembly without a permenant Security Council big brother to watch out for them.
Right, I agree. However, I also agreed with Joe as to the particular sub-discussion regarding the effectiveness of UN Resolutions. They have not been shown to be effective, in the past.

But we are discussing the political an monetary fallout should Israel ever be subjected to the harsh reality of not having the US as its patron. Are you saying that it wouldn't matter?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-23 01:09am

Joe wrote: I was unaware of our current presence in said potential war zone.

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. In any case, the US could exert enough influence so that foreign companies would be leaving wholesale, and trade sanctions against Israeli exports would completely destroy their economy.

I'm not suggesting any of this is feasible you understand, but I was replying to a comment that implied that Israel is immune to outside pressures which it certainly is not.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-23 01:10am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Crown wrote: Ahh Ossus, the debate was about if America withdrew its support of Israel, so Israel would be one of the 'lesser' countries in the General Assembly without a permenant Security Council big brother to watch out for them.
Right, I agree. However, I also agreed with Joe as to the particular sub-discussion regarding the effectiveness of UN Resolutions. They have not been shown to be effective, in the past.

How many of these failed resolutions have had US support?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-23 01:11am

If Israel actually had an enemy that was competent to destroy them, sure they would need U.S. support. But alas, their enemies are Arabs.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-03-23 01:11am

Crown wrote:But we are discussing the political an monetary fallout should Israel ever be subjected to the harsh reality of not having the US as its patron. Are you saying that it wouldn't matter?

No, of course not. However, I think that if the US were to withdraw its support for Israel within the UN (ie. all those resolutions passed, instead of being vetoed), while for some strange reason continuing its other forms of support for Israel, then there would be only minor differences with regards to the current situation. I don't think that the UN resolutions would have accomplished much, even if they had gone through. While I agree that a withdrawal of monetary, military, and political support from the US would damage Israel and probably force fairly rapid changes within the region, I don't think that the US's support for Israel within the UN is a particularly note-worthy or important aspect of that support, in large part because the UN is so toothless.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-23 01:14am

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. In any case, the US could exert enough influence so that foreign companies would be leaving wholesale, and trade sanctions against Israeli exports would completely destroy their economy.

Why would the U.S. want to do such a thing? We don't have anything in particular to gain by screwing over Israel in addition to withdrawing our support of them. We certainly don't have the same security goals as her enemies, probably never will.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-03-23 01:15am

The Kernel wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Crown wrote: Ahh Ossus, the debate was about if America withdrew its support of Israel, so Israel would be one of the 'lesser' countries in the General Assembly without a permenant Security Council big brother to watch out for them.
Right, I agree. However, I also agreed with Joe as to the particular sub-discussion regarding the effectiveness of UN Resolutions. They have not been shown to be effective, in the past.
How many of these failed resolutions have had US support?

All of them. The US has always been a permanent member of the Security Council, and the passage of a resolution from the UN therefore means that the US didn't feel strongly enough about it to veto it. This indicates at least NOMINAL support for the resolutions. In many cases, the US has actually helped to draft and spearhead resolutions which passed through both the General Assembly and the Security Council, which obviously indicates deeper involvement.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-03-23 01:15am

I think the entire idea of having U.S. support withdrawn is a good one. Withdrawl it completely, no carrots, no concessions, nothing. That's what the Arabs want in some way. I don't know of another way to so completely screw people over than giving them exactly what they want.

The only question is whether or not the Europeans would then in turn support Israel at some point, after all, it's a play on influence. The contrarian view on this is actually a pretty good one, let the Arabs and the Israelis slaughter each other. The bottom line is why should anyone care if the primary parties involved don't really give a rats ass. The only difference in all of this is oil, if this was in middle of nowhere Africa, let's face it, most people wouldn't care less.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-03-23 02:33am

Holy fuck, THREE MISSILES for one guy in a wheelchair? Haven't they heard of sniper rifles over there?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-23 03:57am

What exactly would you call them then? They are in Israeli occupied territory which makes them defacto citizens.

International law also makes it incumbent on the occupying power to bear responsbility for the well-being of the people in the territory it is occupying. Either way, the ball is in Israel's court.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-23 04:19am

Lord Poe wrote:Holy fuck, THREE MISSILES for one guy in a wheelchair? Haven't they heard of sniper rifles over there?

Heh heh ... good question.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-23 08:06am

I have a picture of a smoking wheelchair and a turban being all that is left, seems like a monty python sketch. The only way that could have made it better would be to chase him down with a 30 ton steam roller and flatten him. That would have been classic

From another forum. Slightly twisted, but true.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-03-23 08:56am

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:Holy fuck, THREE MISSILES for one guy in a wheelchair? Haven't they heard of sniper rifles over there?
Heh heh ... good question.

Maybe i'm missing something, but how will Israel get snipers into position into a hostile city without the Shiek hearing about it and getting under cover?

To whoever said the 100b comment about our economy: You have got to be shittin me, we're in the bottom of the barrel economicly, and another 3% kill of our GDP, and the economy will crash.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-23 09:27am

Ace Pace wrote: Maybe i'm missing something, but how will Israel get snipers into position into a hostile city without the Shiek hearing about it and getting under cover?

is it not possible to sniper from helicopters?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-23 09:40am

salm wrote:is it not possible to sniper from helicopters?

I think helicopters shake too much.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-23 09:41am

BoredShirtless wrote:
salm wrote:is it not possible to sniper from helicopters?
I think helicopters shake too much.

Aren't Israeli snipers meant to be very good, or am I getting my countries mixed up?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-03-23 09:51am

Sharp-kun wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
salm wrote:is it not possible to sniper from helicopters?
I think helicopters shake too much.
Aren't Israeli snipers meant to be very good, or am I getting my countries mixed up?

Were, unfortunly, the first thing that got cut from the budget was sniper training.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-23 10:13am

Look through a pair of binoculars without a tripod to see why it'd be next to impossible for anyone to snipe from a helicopter.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-23 10:46am

Sharp-kun wrote:
I have a picture of a smoking wheelchair and a turban being all that is left, seems like a monty python sketch. The only way that could have made it better would be to chase him down with a 30 ton steam roller and flatten him. That would have been classic
From another forum. Slightly twisted, but true.

They found a bit more than a turban.

(extremely graphic, not for the kiddies)