Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
Send Topic Print
WW3? An informed conservative perspective (Read 5451 times)
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #120 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:01am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:54am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am:
Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started and continued in a malicious act of depravity
, in revenge for the unresolved confiscation of Palestinian land by the UN in 1947


Corrected for you.

The rest of the article is self-justifying GIGO.  Loosely  reveals the fault-lines in the ALP re the creation of Israel, mirroring the old DLP  conflict re Catholicism versus Marxism. 






Corrected for you.


You need to assist FD to reply to my #117 (at the time of writing, no more questions from him....) , to  show how you "corrected" my post.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #121 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am
 
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.


As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine.
Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not.


Oh dear...regardless of age, low IQ is entreched in some people.

Of course the UN resolution to partitioin Palestine didn't involve the UNSDC veto, because all UNSC members were in favour of the proposal.

The probem arose when the Arabs - without representation in the UNSC - began resisting self-proclaimed Israeli sovereignty (in the land designated as Israel by the UN). 

That's when the UNSC veto reared its ugly head, meaning  the UNSC was unable to speak with one voice, to maintain the peace.

Quote:
There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue.


Refuted above.

"moronic"  ...oh dear, it's mirror time again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #122 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am
 
.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #123 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
 
.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #124 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
 
.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84802
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #125 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
 
... got a big fish on the line....................
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46580
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #126 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:19am
 
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.


As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine.
Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not.

There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue.



Encyclopedia Britannica

United Nations Resolution 181
Israeli-Palestinian history
   
Also known as: Resolution 181
Written and fact-checked by
Article History
UN partition plan for Israel and Palestine in 1947

United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime. The resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence.

Palestine had been governed by Great Britain since 1922. Since that time, Jewish immigration to the region had increased, and tensions between Arabs and Jews had grown. In April 1947, exhausted by World War II and increasingly intent upon withdrawing from the Middle East region, Britain referred the issue of Palestine to the UN. To investigate a suitable course of action, the UN formed the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), an inquiry committee made up of members from 11 countries. Ultimately, UNSCOP delivered two proposals: that of the majority, which recommended two separate states joined economically, and that of the minority, which supported the formation of a single binational state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas. The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both. A counterproposal—including a provision that only those Jews who had arrived before the Balfour Declaration (and their descendents) would be citizens of the state—did not win Jewish favour.

The proposal to partition Palestine, based on a modified version of the UNSCOP majority report, was put to a General Assembly vote on November 29, 1947. The fate of the proposal was initially uncertain, but, after a period of intense lobbying by pro-Jewish groups and individuals, the resolution was passed with 33 votes in favour, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181

Who voted for, against, abstentions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Fina...


No veto.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:24am by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84802
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #127 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:20am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.


As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine.
Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not.


Oh dear...regardless of age, low IQ is entreched in some people.

Of course the UN resolution to partitioin Palestine didn't involve the UNSDC veto, because all UNSC members were in favour of the proposal.

The problem arose when the Arabs - without representation in the UNSC - began resisting self-proclaimed attacking Israeli sovereignty (in the land designated as Israel by the UN). 

That's when the UNSC veto reared its ugly head, meaning  the UNSC was unable to speak with one voice, to maintain the peace.

Quote:
There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue.


Refuted above.

"moronic"  ...oh dear, it's mirror time again.


Corrected partially for you - just walking over the personal nonsense from an alleged adult...   Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84802
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #128 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:21am
 
                           chew                            on                     dividie's                    arse
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84802
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #129 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:22am
 




                      stealth                      glitches                             in                                    operation
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84802
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #130 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:23am
 
                    it                       drives                            him                                 c      r      a     z         y
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46580
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #131 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:24am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.


As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine.
Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not.


Oh dear...regardless of age, low IQ is entreched in some people.

Of course the UN resolution to partitioin Palestine didn't involve the UNSDC veto, because all UNSC members were in favour of the proposal.

The probem arose when the Arabs - without representation in the UNSC - began resisting self-proclaimed Israeli sovereignty (in the land designated as Israel by the UN). 

That's when the UNSC veto reared its ugly head, meaning  the UNSC was unable to speak with one voice, to maintain the peace.

Quote:
There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue.


Refuted above.

"moronic"  ...oh dear, it's mirror time again.

Ah, you mean the Arabs exercised their lizard-brain individual sovereignty and voted against the wishes of the majority, against common prosperity and peaceful coexist e nice, and then immediately attacked Israel to force their wishes upon it and on the majority of the UN members a nd consensus.

Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
You are an endlessly self-contradictory, dogmatic little pea-brained parrot.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49096
At my desk.
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #132 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:48am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:51am:
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:36am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am:
Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started continued in a malicious act of depravity
, in revenge for the unresolved confiscation of Palestinian land by the UN in 1947


Corrected for you.

The rest of the article is self-justifying GIGO.  Loosely  reveals the fault-lines in the ALP re the creation of Israel, mirroring the old DLP  conflict re Catholicism versus Marxism. 


In what sense did the UN confiscate the land?


The UN voted to partition Palestine, thereby being complicit in the confiscation of  more than half of the Palestine Mandate land, for the proposed Israeli state.

The actual confiscation occured when  Zionists unilaterally proclaimed the existence of Israel, during the violence which followed the UN partition vote. 

Quote:
Aren't you the one who always says we should stick with what the UN wanted?


No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.



So the locals "confiscated" their own land? Who from?

You cannot seem to make up your mind whether to complain about the UN partitioning or complain about them not sending in troops to enforce their declarations. Is there some higher authority other than the UN who you think should have established a state instead?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #133 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:08pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:24am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.


As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine.
Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not.


Oh dear...regardless of age, low IQ is entreched in some people.

Of course the UN resolution to partitioin Palestine didn't involve the UNSDC veto, because all UNSC members were in favour of the proposal.

The probem arose when the Arabs - without representation in the UNSC - began resisting self-proclaimed Israeli sovereignty (in the land designated as Israel by the UN). 

That's when the UNSC veto reared its ugly head, meaning  the UNSC was unable to speak with one voice, to maintain the peace.

Quote:
There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue.


Refuted above.

"moronic"  ...oh dear, it's mirror time again.


Ah, you mean the Arabs exercised their lizard-brain individual sovereignty and voted against the wishes of the majority,


In the UNGA...yes.

Nice to see you make a correct statement now and again, but I fear it won't be repeated below....


Quote:
....against common prosperity and peaceful coexist e nice,


Oh dear - nothing to with common prosperity and peaceful coexistence, everything to do with lizard brains and their delusional cultural/national  sovereignty ideologies...

Quote:
and then immediately attacked Israel to force their wishes upon it and on the majority of the UN members a nd consensus.


The non-Arab/non-UNSC members of the UNGA were  powerless to prevent the violonce resulting from a general  ignorance of the egregious effects of cultural/ national sovereignty delusions - delusions which caused the veto to be demanded by the UNSC members only a year earlier (despite the fact delegates from many smaller countries voted to withhold the veto from the UNSC in 1946)


Quote:
Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
You are an endlessly self-contradictory, dogmatic little pea-brained parrot.


Refuted above; aren't you ashamed to have your "individual freedom" delusions so utterly exposed?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12983
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #134 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:48am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:51am:
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:36am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am:
Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started continued in a malicious act of depravity
, in revenge for the unresolved confiscation of Palestinian land by the UN in 1947


Corrected for you.

The rest of the article is self-justifying GIGO.  Loosely  reveals the fault-lines in the ALP re the creation of Israel, mirroring the old DLP  conflict re Catholicism versus Marxism. 


In what sense did the UN confiscate the land?


The UN voted to partition Palestine, thereby being complicit in the confiscation of  more than half of the Palestine Mandate land, for the proposed Israeli state.

The actual confiscation occured when  Zionists unilaterally proclaimed the existence of Israel, during the violence which followed the UN partition vote. 

Quote:
Aren't you the one who always says we should stick with what the UN wanted?


No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires  a UNSC without veto.



So the locals "confiscated" their own land? Who from?


A brain-damaged question.

The UN by vote, and  the Zionists by force, confiscated more than 50%  of Palestinian Mandate land.

Quote:
You cannot seem to make up your mind whether to complain about the UN partitioning or complain about them not sending in troops to enforce their declarations.


Oh yes I can: the UN should have guaranteed a Palestinian state alongside Israel, BEFORE recognising Israel's existance.

But the UN(SC) was rendered powerless by your delusional "individual freedom" ideology, hence Israel enforced its own existance - and the rest is history.

Now 140 UNGA members (2/3rds)  are calling for a Palestinian state, but ONE nation - the global hegemon -  is exercising its veto power.   

Quote:
Is there some higher authority other than the UN who you think should have established a state instead?


Yes: one capable of establishing an  effective international rules-based order.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
Send Topic Print