30 Years of U.S. Vetoes

Border-Rat

In light of the criticism levelled against Russia/China by the Country responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (If not more), not to mention installing a fundamentalist regime in Iraq that has sheer violent contempt for Christians. Say nothing of the dead in Afghanistan or Pakistan, not to mention Libya or Yemen --- I thought it would be apt to take a look at US Vetoes;

Year

---

Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms 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 Afirms 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 Afirms 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 resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms 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.

Its interesting that most, if not all of these are contrary to basic calls for peace and stability. But more revealing is that over 30 of them are against criticism of Israel, some of which are the most heinous acts - e.g. the USA apparently thought it was acceptable for an Israeli soldier to murder 11 civilians. Its quite clear that lobbyists control the USA. Bought and paid for, the setup is ingenius but simple: Buy politicians by having them donate massive aid to Israel, then circulate a percentage of that 'aid' back to the Politicians own wallet. All paid for, of course, by the loyal US taxpayer.

Pacifist Pigeon

You know, China, Russia and the USA aren't the only members of the UN Security Council, don't you?

It's not just the USA who is backing the proposed resolution. Why should people bicker over the USA and their hypocrisy when the situation is to do with Syria and a regime that decides to kill it's own people in cold blood?

Why should the USA be the mitigating factor in this conflict and the proposed resolution? The USA isn't the only nation in the world that is capable of wrongdoing. Just because the USA decided to veto some vital resolutions in the past doesn't make what China and Russia did any better.

Would you like to see the resolution vetoed or quashed?

wes

Yes, the US is much worse, when it comes to veto's than anyone else, and I did find Hilary Clintons statement to be sheer and utter hypocrisy, as they would happily veto a similar resolution, if it was in regard to Israel, but the US doing the same thing as China and Russia, doesn't change the fact that both are wrong when they do so.

Personally, I see no difference between the 2. There both enabling mass murder imho.

Mr.Micro

wes wrote: »

Yes, the US is much worse, when it comes to veto's than anyone else, and I did find Hilary Clintons statement to be sheer and utter hypocrisy, as they would happily veto a similar resolution, if it was in regard to Israel, but the US doing the same thing as China and Russia, doesn't change the fact that both are wrong when they do so.

Personally, I see no difference between the 2. There both enabling mass murder imho.

Indeed its laughable at Clinton's pretend condemnation and outrage. The US would have more credibility if it was fair and consistent and not cherry pick or take sides.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Yes, the US is much worse, when it comes to veto's than anyone else, and I did find Hilary Clintons statement to be sheer and utter hypocrisy, as they would happily veto a similar resolution, if it was in regard to Israel, but the US doing the same thing as China and Russia, doesn't change the fact that both are wrong when they do so.

Personally, I see no difference between the 2. There both enabling mass murder imho.

More people have died in the last year in Syria then in the last 20 years in Gaza and the West Bank, I'd say that makes what China and Russia are doing MUCH worse.

Also the russians are doing this because of what they have done in the past in Chechnya (far FAR worse than anything in Gaza and West Bank) and what they may do there in the future if trouble flares up again and China are doing this because of what they may do if trouble flares up in Tibet or the rebellious western areas of China.

ItsAWindUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

More people have died in the last year in Syria then in the last 20 years in Gaza and the West Bank, I'd say that makes what China and Russia are doing MUCH worse.

Also the russians are doing this because of what they have done in the past in Chechnya (far FAR worse than anything in Gaza and West Bank) and what they may do there in the future if trouble flares up again and China are doing this because of what they may do if trouble flares up in Tibet or the rebellious western areas of China.

Am, not sure that's right

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

More people have died in the last year in Syria then in the last 20 years in Gaza and the West Bank, I'd say that makes what China and Russia are doing MUCH worse.

Please, look at the US veto's, they don't just include what is done to the Palestinians (i also question your numbers as well). I singled out Israel, as that example was the closest to the Syrian regime. Secondly, I have no doubt there are plenty on here who would defend the exact same actions that Assad is doing, if it was Israel doing it. In fact, when Israel was murdering Palestinians, many posters did exactly that. So, the whole China and Russia are worse is nonsense.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also the russians are doing this because of what they have done in the past in Chechnya (far FAR worse than anything in Gaza and West Bank) and what they may do there in the future if trouble flares up again and China are doing this because of what they may do if trouble flares up in Tibet or the rebellious western areas of China.

The US is killing scores of civilians in Pakistan on a regular basis themselves at the moment, including the targetting of funerals, and rescuers as well. Then there was the US war of aggression against Iraq as well (the recent Haditya massacre decision, showing that the US is more than happy to let there own mass murders walk). I could go on and list all the crap the US has pulled easily enough.

There is little difference between the 2, and I find the hypocrisy of those who make excuses for US, to only turn around and offer criticism to China and Russia astonishing.

RandomName2

Border-Rat wrote: »

In light of the criticism levelled against Russia/China by the Country responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (If not more),

Stopped bothering to read after this bit.

Cork boy 55

@OP

do you have a link for your OP, please?

hatrickpatrick

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Just because the USA decided to veto some vital resolutions in the past doesn't make what China and Russia did any better.

Would you like to see the resolution vetoed or quashed?

No, I think you're missing the point.
I don't want to see the resolution fail, I'm as dismayed by its failure as anyone else.

But what I DO want, is for the hypocritical, supremacist, two faced US government to shut the f*ck UP.

Gurgle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But what I DO want, is for the hypocritical, supremacist, two faced US government to shut the f*ck UP.

I think you're missing the point of the UN.
It's only power is that of prevarication, but this has successfully delayed World War 3 for 67 years and counting.

The super-powers are all on the security council and all have vetoes. This way they just veto each other whenever the opportunity arises, and never actually press the big red 'Quit' button.

hatrickpatrick

Gurgle wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the UN.
It's only power is that of prevarication, but this has successfully delayed World War 3 for 67 years and counting.

The super-powers are all on the security council and all have vetoes. This way they just veto each other whenever the opportunity arises, and never actually press the big red 'Quit' button.

I'm not talking about the UN, I'm talking about listening to US leaders b!tch about some countries doing exactly the same things they applaud their allies for.

The US declaration of independence states that "All men are created equal". Either something is ok or it isn't, and either everyone has to follow the rules or no one does.

If the US government is going to make speeches condemning other governments for supporting terrorist regimes, they must stop doing so themselves first. Otherwise it's the most disgracefully obvious "Pot, kettle, black" scenario imaginable.

I don't know about you, but the one thing I cannot stand in this world above all else is double standards.

dsmythy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, I think you're missing the point.
I don't want to see the resolution fail, I'm as dismayed by its failure as anyone else.

But what I DO want, is for the hypocritical, supremacist, two faced US government to shut the f*ck UP.

They're hardly just going to say fair enough so. The 'US and their vetos' coverage has provided some nice comfort room for China, Russia and Syria anyway.

brimal

Typical. More outrage towards the US reaction to the veto, than the actual veto itself!

These anti-West threads are getting more and more predictable/boring.

Sunnyisland

brimal wrote: »

Typical. More outrage towards the US reaction to the veto, than the actual veto itself!

These anti-West threads are getting more and more predictable/boring.

Totally agree with above.


What about the syrian people OP ?

czx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg

Mr.Micro

brimal wrote: »

Typical. More outrage towards the US reaction to the veto, than the actual veto itself!

These anti-West threads are getting more and more predictable/boring.

As if the yanks care about Syria. The only outrage is coming from the US when China and Russia play the game of the US. Its funny, where it not so tragic for the people of Syria. There is always invasion of course?

Jaafa

czx wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg

Thing is half of those Soviet veto's (79 I think) came in the space of 10 years, mainly back in the 50's. Not a really relevant to the modern day. Going from 1966 to now you can see the US has used its veto about as many times as the rest of the council put together.

fly_agaric

I find the US govt. tendency to always claim a moral high ground for how they behave in the security council as regards states whose actions they sponsor resolutions against, what they veto etc a bit sick-making.

IMO these decisions are primarily based on power-politics and interests, not a universal moral code of humanity that the "good" USA adheres to but those "baddies" like Russia and China don't care about.

Sunnyisland

fly_agaric wrote: »

I find the US govt. tendency to always claim a moral high ground for how they behave in the security council as regards states whose actions they sponsor resolutions against, what they veto etc a bit sick-making.

IMO these decisions are primarily based on power-politics and interests, not a universal moral code of humanity that the "good" USA adheres to but those "baddies" like Russia and China don't care about.

I find a lot of people who live in the west dont know how lucky they are that they do.

Icepick

two wrongs don't make a right

czx

Jaafa wrote: »

Thing is half of those Soviet veto's (79 I think) came in the space of 10 years, mainly back in the 50's. Not a really relevant to the modern day. Going from 1966 to now you can see the US has used its veto about as many times as the rest of the council put together.

Ya, you're right. We should focus on what's actually happening now. Oh wait...

wes

So, when the US veto's a resolution against condemning mass murder, I am sure the same people complaining on here, will be the first ones to condemn it.....

RichieC

wes wrote: »

So, when the US veto's a resolution against condemning mass murder, I am sure the same people complaining on here, will be the first ones to condemn it.....

It doesnt work like that with religious apologists.

Bullseye1

realies wrote: »

Totally agree with above.


What about the syrian people OP ?

What is happening in Syria is tragic but maybe if America backed one or two of those resolutions against Israel they might get more support from the other permanent members of the security council.


At the end of the day America's and the other permanent members actions over the years have made a mockery of the UN and what it is meant to stand for. It's a joke.

The Israeli

If there wasn't Israel, it should have been invented so people like the OP could rant about something.

There are currently 2 open threads about Israel on the first page, and it is mentioned in some others.

If just arriving Aliens would have seen the amount of fuzz around Israel on this forum they would have thought that Jews are really the chosen people judging by all the talks going on around them.

RichieC

Wow 2 open threads... Youd swear they were in thr news for sometbing or other.

Democratic underground a us site has an entire subforum dedicated to israeli palistine conflict and is a busy forum..

Border-Rat

realies wrote: »

Totally agree with above.


What about the syrian people OP ?

Anglo-American/Israeli policy:

Opponents of NATO Regime in Afghanistan: Terrorists
Opponents of Syrian Regime: 'Rebels'

Opponents of Former US Presence in Iraq: Terrorists
Opponents of Former Gadaffi Regime: Rebels

Note: That the opponents of Assad are fundamentalists, a fact conveniently ignored by Western conservitards. So, I'm going to go ahead and call the opponents of Assad 'Terrorists'. The USA can't complain about shelling terrorists, it has a habit of blowing up weddings in Afghanistan and backing a brutal crack-down in Bahrain.

Its quite laughable. Who were the 'rebels' in Libya, just like in Egypt and Syria? People who despise Christians, fundamentalists. However, such contradictions are irrelevent. Lets dismiss them as 'conspiracy theorist' and come on in for the big win.

Bullseye1

You don't think it's justified that the US calls what Russia and China does as dispicable when they themselves have vetoed so many. I've no problem for the most part in the US defending Israel (although I think they are well capable of looking after themselves). I'm sure they have chastised Israel behind closed doors but never in public. A bit like a good football manager. But it's perception and we live in a media driven society. And the perception is the US are hypocritical in many of their actions. And the good that they do is overshadowed by some of their other actions. No one should be exempt from critical analysis.

Bullseye1

It certainly looks like the Arab Rising is actually a fundamentalist uprising and may backfire against those who have helped its success. But we will have to wait and see.

Border-Rat wrote: »

Anglo-American/Israeli policy:

Opponents of NATO Regime in Afghanistan: Terrorists
Opponents of Syrian Regime: 'Rebels'

Opponents of Former US Presence in Iraq: Terrorists
Opponents of Former Gadaffi Regime: Rebels

Note: That the opponents of Assad are fundamentalists, a fact conveniently ignored by Western conservitards. So, I'm going to go ahead and call the opponents of Assad 'Terrorists'. The USA can't complain about shelling terrorists, it has a habit of blowing up weddings in Afghanistan and backing a brutal crack-down in Bahrain.

Its quite laughable. Who were the 'rebels' in Libya, just like in Egypt and Syria? People who despise Christians, fundamentalists. However, such contradictions are irrelevent. Lets dismiss them as 'conspiracy theorist' and come on in for the big win.

Border-Rat

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It certainly looks like the Arab Rising is actually a fundamentalist uprising and may backfire against those who have helped its success. But we will have to wait and see.

We don't have to wait and see. For a start, in Iraq, the US has already installed a fundamentalist regime and let it kick them out of the Country.

Then in Egypt, the likes of this happening - new regime military murdering Christians;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/shock-video-egyptian-army-vehicles-run-over-coptic-protesters-in-cairo/

Building a Church in Egypt declared 'sin';

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2009/09/03/egypt-muslim-council-building-of-churches-is-sin-against-allah/

These are the same people Assad is fighting. America is now trying to destroy one of the last secular Arab States with a view to provoking Iran, which has a defense-pact with Syria.

The Israeli

RichieC wrote: »

Wow 2 open threads... Youd swear they were in thr news for sometbing or other.

Democratic underground a us site has an entire subforum dedicated to israeli palistine conflict and is a busy forum..

Heh, wherever justice fighters are needed...
Do you know the Israel in Ireland facebook group?
It's a semi official group. You get the bonus of talking directly to some Israelis + other Israeli "not so fans".

However, people here are more serious. Years on years of training makes perfection..

Tony EH

It certainly looks like the Arab Rising is actually a fundamentalist uprising and may backfire against those who have helped its success. But we will have to wait and see.

Well, Al Queda are firmly entrenched in Libya now due to the help of American intervention there. Funny how the bad guys of ten years ago are suddenly "freedom fighters" who need US help now. Although, they were "Freedom Fighters" when they were the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the 80's. So, swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

I doubt that Russia or China care too much about the Assad government though. They are more concerned with keeping US bombers out of yet another Middle Eastern country they have no business in and the US are only waxing on about "human rights abuses", so they can pursue their own agenda under ostensible guises.

Interestingly enough, the Russian UK ambassador was on Newsnight tonight and mentioned that the wording of the resolution (US worded to a large degree, no doubt) mentioned that Syria had 21 days to comply...that's 21 DAYS! Which is a ridiculous proposal to make on any Nation. Especially one that's going through the turmoil that Syria is at the moment.

In my opinion, they were entirely correct in issuing their veto. At least it kept American bombers out of the picture for a little bit longer.

The Israeli

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, Al Queda are firmly entrenched in Libya now due to the help of American intervention there. Funny how the bad guys of ten years ago are suddenly "freedom fighters" who need US help now. Although, they were "Freedom Fighters" when they were the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the 80's. So, swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

I doubt that Russia or China care too much about the Assad government though. They are more concerned with keeping US bombers out of yet another Middle Eastern country they have no business in and are only waxing on about "human rights abuses", so they can pursue their own agenda under ostensible guises.

Interestingly enough, the Russian UK ambassador was on Newsnight tonight and mentioned that the wording of the resolution (US worded to a large degree, no doubt) mentioned that Syria had 21 days to comply...that's 21 DAYS! Which is a ridiculous proposal to make on any Nation. Especially one that's going through the turmoil that Syria is at the moment.

In my opinion, they were entirely correct in issuing their veto. At least it kept American bombers out of the picture for a little bit longer.

So what you are saying is that there aren't human rights abuses in Syria:

It's from yesterday. The man in the video is probably just a mad guy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMBBDiDAxnc

Tony EH

Eh?

That's what you got out the post? WTF?

Bullseye1

No doubt there are human rights abuse as I'm sure there are in China. But you don't see thr US threatening to go into China.

The Israeli

Tony EH wrote: »

Eh?

That's what you got out the post? WTF?

Sorry, my bad.. Didn't comprehend it correctly.

Correction: I got it correctly before..
US bombers out of Syria are more important to you than thousands of human lives.

Like on one hand stands a regime that is clearly not hesitating to do everything that in its powers to survive, and is clearly NOT going to survive for a long time after the massive killings of its own.
It has lost all legitimacy among the Syrians and the sane world.
Why not to spare death of thousands of people? Many of those who are fighting him are the common folk, and not some military groups with a religious agenda or something radical.
Any day that passes by without a strong reaction by the world as it was done with Libya, is costing unnecessary lives.

The Israeli

Bullseye1 wrote: »

No doubt there are human rights abuse as I'm sure there are in China. But you don't see thr US threatening to go into China.

It's a matter of scales too. At least 7,100 died in a year time and the intensity is getting stronger while Asad's regime weakens. The number might double and triple and even more before Asad falls. That's what the west was trying to prevent, and hopefully China and Russia will not prologue this catastrophe for any longer because of their economic interests, because human lives are non of their concerns.

Asad is going to fall, and the question is how many he is going to take with him.

Border-Rat

Assad still has majority support. The support of the army, business elite and Sunni secularists. Not to mention Russia. Assad is going nowhere, so I'm afraid greater Israel is postponed indefinitely.

The Israeli

Yes, but he is losing support and soldiers in an increasing rate, isn't he?
And the violence is getting higher.

You take the Syrians for fools.

czx

wes wrote: »

So, when the US veto's a resolution against condemning mass murder, I am sure the same people complaining on here, will be the first ones to condemn it.....

So, when Russia and China veto a resolution against condemning mass murder, I am sure the same people complaining on here, will be the first ones to condemn it....

wes

czx wrote: »

So, when Russia and China veto a resolution against condemning mass murder, I am sure the same people complaining on here, will be the first ones to condemn it....

I already condemned both personally earlier in the thread, when I said the US, China, and Russia have all essentially defended mass murder, but I can guarantee, when we see the US do it, plenty complaining on here, will not say a word to condemn, and will in all likelihood support it and call anyone who disagrees Anti-American or Anti-Western (words to that effect have probably already been said in this thread).

The hypocrisy from such posters always gives me such a good laugh. China and Russia are awful for doing something, but when the US does exactly the same things, its apparently alright.

So, perhaps we should refer to posters who go after China and Russia, but ignore the US, Anti-Russian and Anti-Chinese? Sure, if its fine the other way around....

czx

wes wrote: »

Yes, the US is much worse, when it comes to veto's than anyone else, and I did find Hilary Clintons statement to be sheer and utter hypocrisy, as they would happily veto a similar resolution, if it was in regard to Israel, but the US doing the same thing as China and Russia, doesn't change the fact that both are wrong when they do so.

Personally, I see no difference between the 2. There both enabling mass murder imho.

Would you prefer to have Russia/China as the sole world superpower at this moment in place of the US? Can you answer that with a yes/no?

wes

czx wrote: »

Would you prefer to have Russia/China as the sole world superpower at this moment in place of the US? Can you answer that with a yes/no?

I was talking about the US being much worse in the terms of vetos, which is true since the Soviet Union ceased to exist. There is no difference between, the US stopping a resolution agianst the brutish mass murders, and China and Russia doing the same for there, except that the US has done it a lot more than anyone else, since the USSR went the way of the Dodo.

As for your leading question, I won't bother with sticking to such an artifical yes or no answer, when my answer would be no one, as they all inevtiably become corrupt.

Also, someone being blown to pieces by a US drone (or the victims family), while attending a funeral, or trying to help someone after another US terrorist attack via drone, probably wouldn't care whether the people engaging in the terrorism are a democracy or not. IMHO, being a democracy doesn't mean you get to kill people, and still claim to be better than everyone else.

Also, my point from before still stands, plenty on here have and will defend the US doing the exact same thing as China and Russia.

Memnoch

The U.S. is not a democracy. It is an plutocracy/oligarchy.

czx

wes wrote: »

I was talking about the US being much worse in the terms of vetos, which is true since the Soviet Union ceased to exist. There is no difference between, the US stopping a resolution agianst the brutish mass murders, and China and Russia doing the same for there, except that the US has done it a lot more than anyone else, since the USSR went the way of the Dodo.

As for your leading question, I won't bother with sticking to such an artifical yes or no answer, when my answer would be no one, as they all inevtiably become corrupt.

Also, someone being blown to pieces by a US drone (or the victims family), while attending a funeral, or trying to help someone after another US terrorist attack via drone, probably wouldn't care whether the people engaging in the terrorism are a democracy or not. IMHO, being a democracy doesn't mean you get to kill people, and still claim to be better than everyone else.

Also, my point from before still stands, plenty on here have and will defend the US doing the exact same thing as China and Russia.

You can't answer. Well unfortunately not everyone can or wants to hide in your utopia, where inaction always leads to a happy outcome. Some people have to make tough choices based on the reality of the situation.

If you cannot see the difference between Russia/China and the US it's because you choose not to.

wes

czx wrote: »

You can't answer.

I did answer, just not in the silly artifical yes or no way you wanted. My answer is no one.

czx wrote: »

Well unfortunately not everyone can or wants to hide in your utopia, where inaction always leads to a happy outcome. Some people have to make tough choices based on the reality of the situation.

You talking utter nonsense. Dead Palestinians have as much worth as a dead Syrian. So I find it equally repugnant when any country defends those reposible. What I am is morally consistent, and not an apolgist for mass murder. It has nothing to do with utopia, just an acceptance of reality, that no matter how good someone is or claims to be, they will be corrupted by power. To believe otherwise would be to ignore basic reality.

czx wrote: »

If you cannot see the difference between Russia/China and the US it's because you choose not to.

One shower of murders isn't any different than another shower of murders. The US defends the murder of innocent people, and so do Russia and China, and as such I consider them the same. What ever pathetic excuses those who support the US murder of civlians is just hypocrisy, as per usual. You will attack Russia and China, and happily excuse or out and out support the exact same thing when the US does it.

czx

wes wrote: »

I did answer, just not in the silly artifical yes or no way you wanted. My answer is no one.



You talking utter nonsense. Dead Palestinians have as much worth as a dead Syrian. So I find it equally repugnant when any country defends those reposible. What I am is morally consistent, and not an apolgist for mass murder. It has nothing to do with utopia, just an acceptance of reality, that no matter how good someone is or claims to be, they will be corrupted by power. To believe otherwise would be to ignore basic reality.



One shower of murders isn't any different than another shower of murders. The US murder innocent people, and so do Russia and China, and as such I consider them the same. What ever pathetic excuses those who support the US murder of civlians is just hypocrisy, as per usual. You will attack Russia and China, and happily excuse or out and out support the exact same thing when the US does it.

I can't seem to reconcile this. If you were in a position of power would you be corrupted?

You've missed my point I'm afraid

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

but I can guarantee, when we see the US do it, plenty complaining on here, will not say a word to condemn, and will in all likelihood support it and call anyone who disagrees Anti-American or Anti-Western (words to that effect have probably already been said in this thread).

I don't see any posters bringing up what the Russians did to the Chechyens dozens of times a week, nor do I see them constantly bringing it up in international threads nor creating threads just to force discussion of it the issue.

There's simply no justification for it.

Memnoch

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't see any posters bringing up what the Russians did to the Chechyens dozens of times a week, nor do I see them constantly bringing it up in international threads nor creating threads just to force discussion of it the issue.

There's simply no justification for it.

Because you will really struggle to find ANYONE here to argue the point that what the Russians did was anything but abhorant and absolutely despicable.

Debates don't last very long when everyone agrees.

You will, however, find countless people defending Israel when it kills civilians and inflicts collective punishment on the palestinian people. You will find the same people defending the US when it vetos resolutions in the UN and you will find people defending the US when it engages in such reprehensible behaviour itself.

There is a double standard here, yes, and I'm sorry to say it's only on one side of the aisle.

Border-Rat

The Israeli wrote: »

Yes, but he is losing support and soldiers in an increasing rate, isn't he?
And the violence is getting higher.

You take the Syrians for fools.

My entire point was that no, he isn't losing support but in fact has the support of every constituency and more required to keep control and that as a result the terrorism is being stamped out. So no, he isn't losing support and no, the violence is not getting higher. I take the Syrians for intelligent and cultured people.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but your hasbarat shilling has no effect on me.