Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
Send Topic Print
WW3? An informed conservative perspective (Read 5404 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49094
At my desk.
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #135 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm
 
Quote:
The UN by vote, and  the Zionists by force, confiscated more than 50%  of Palestinian Mandate land.


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

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


That is not what the UN does. It cannot force Muslims to create a functioning state instead of devoting their efforts towards slaughtering Jews.

Am I correct that your problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with the UN not setting up a second state alongside it?

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm:
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.


Sigh. I am asking you about the reality, not your fantasy. Does this higher authority actually exist? Are you referring to your insistence that the USA intervenes?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 34805
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #136 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:54pm
 
boo hoo

so the poor old palestinians got displaced

now they have acted up

they can get displaced again

into the sinai desert or back under whatever rock they crawled out from under

the other arab states despise them

one wonders why

maybe its because they are despicable

bye bye gazans

enjoy your tents in the sinai

next time, maybe dont elect a terrorist government

learn from your mistakes

take some 'personal responsibility" for where you messed up.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11596
armidale
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #137 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 1:04pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm:
  effective international rules-based order.

Yes the final soution is the Chinese Peoples' Military Province of Palestine-Israel. With naval order in the Western China Sea.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 84800
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #138 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:19pm
 
"establishing an  effective international rules-based order."

Done a great job there so far................................... now then - when you can compel the Muslim states to stop firing on Israel while Israel fends off the attacks with a little help from the USAF and the RAF .... didn't miss that, did you?  Even Syria is supposed to be assisting the defence..... they know who'll win eventually.

The UN is becoming increasingly isolated and deservedly so.... weak as piss and now dominated by losers ... lucky to get through the double doors with those chips on their shoulders....
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: 46572
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #139 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:45pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on 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...


Cheesy Cheesy
So the problem started by the Jews accepting the UN resolution and Muslims starting a war instead.
And that is the UNSC's fault because they didn't stop the lizard-brained, individual sovereignty Muslims from starting a war despite the clearly expressed will of the UN for common prosperity and peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.

You talk some really self-contradictory, hare-brained crap.


Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 46572
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #140 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:56pm
 
Meanwhile, after six months in geopolitical Coventry, Israel is once again flush with allies:

(April 14, 2024 / JNS) The United States, United Kingdom and Jordan downed many of the over 300 projectiles launched at Israel by Iran overnight Sunday, while France also played a role in defending the Jewish state against the unprecedented attack.

The Jordanians were mostly concerned to protect their own territory from carelessly targeted incoming, the French are said to have confined their efforts to patrolling the airspace and giving a friendly head's up, and the British dispatched jets from the RAF base at Akrotiri to take out Iranian drones over Syria and Iraq. Whether any of these efforts were militarily necessary to Israel's defence, they're not likely to be politically popular on their respective home fronts. Yet all were eager to be perceived as in on the operation, and their participation is being hailed as the emergence of a new Israeli-Sunni-western regional security force:

So rather than weaken Israel, Iran's attack has ended up convening an extraordinary military alliance – with Arabs, Israelis, Americans and British acting as one to neutralise the assault.

The Tehran regime is many things but it is not stupid. It has seeded its proxies - Hamas, Hizb'allah and Houthis - all over the map, and it showed greater strategic clarity over Iraq than the boobs in Washington did: America toppled Saddam, but the mullahs got the spoils. If Iran had lobbed what they threw at Israel at the average EU member, its cities would be in flames and its mortuaries full. It is not credible that the mullahs would not be fully aware that the Iron Dome would hold. So that's an awful lot of matériel to blow on a minimal bang for the buck.

When the Iranians use their cut-outs, they know how to kill Jews: General Zahedi, the Quds Force commander assassinated by the IDF earlier this month, is said to have been the man behind the October 7th operation - which certainly would seem to be beyond the capabilities of the average Hamas honcho. By comparison with the visceral depravity of autumn's parachutists and flatbed riders, last night's assault had the air of the performative and bloodless. For his part, the squinting mumbling stiff being passed off as "Leader of the Free World" could do no more than recycle his summer-stock slab of ham from his pre-Ukraine shtick. For Khamenei as for Putin, a single word:

Don't.

And Khamenei, like Putin, did.

But ineffectually.

IDF warplanes killed Zahedi in the Iranian Embassy compound in Damascus, which is an act of war - notwithstanding Israel's artful argument that their particular target was a non-consular building within a consular complex. Still, it could hardly not have provoked a response from Tehran. As the lefties at The Guardian argue:

"The war had come out of the shadows – and this was Netanyahu's doing. He must have known how furious would be the reaction in Tehran. Tellingly, he did not inform his US ally in advance, probably because the Biden administration would have tried to veto the operation. The Damascus embassy attack looks like a premeditated escalation designed to fortify Netanyahu's domestic political position, silence criticism from the blind-sided Americans and deflect international pressure to halt arms supplies to Israel.

And it has worked."

Indeed. After forty-five years of loosing its lethal proxies on Jews all over the world, Iran decided to act as a sovereign state and for the first time openly sic its official armed forces on Israel.

But without killing anyone ...and after giving the Sunni Arab states a seventy-two-hours advance warning. And, having offered up its most expensive baubles for Anglo-Franco-American-Jordanian target practice, Tehran has now assured the United Nations that it's had its fun and there will be no further strikes. As Daniel Greenfield concludes:

This is not the actual Iranian attack.

This is the 'attack' prearranged for show between Iran and the Biden administration through backchannels.
https://www.steynonline.com/14200/when-the-dust-settles
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #141 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm:
So the locals "confiscated" their own land? Who from?


You can't confiscate your own land (quotation marks or not).

That's just your brain damage in evidence; the confiscation happened when Jews among the "locals" (note the quotation marks...)  were supported by zionists who drove many Palestinians out of the proposed Israeli state - Palestinians being a majority  among the "locals" before their forced expulsion -  a direct  result of incompetent UN management of the Partition. 

Quote:
That is not what the UN does. It cannot force Muslims to create a functioning state instead of devoting their efforts towards slaughtering Jews.


Wrong on both counts.

The UN can create states, and indeed proposed the creation of two states in the Palestine Mandate Area.

And it SHOULD enforce security in the proposed 2 states, since lizard brains  have the upper hand  in both states.

(No doubt you will claim you aren't a lizard brain...)

Quote:
Am I correct that your problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with the UN not setting up a second state alongside it?


Correct, with  jail for  evil-doers on either side. 

Quote:
Sigh. I am asking you about the reality, not your fantasy.


So sayeth the lizard brain with his subjective reality/ shared belief delusion.

Quote:
Does this higher authority actually exist? Are you referring to your insistence that the USA intervenes?


1. No

2. Yes; ie, intervene  along with the other UNSC members, to enforce securty among the lizard brains on either side.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46572
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #142 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:16pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm:
[quote]Am I correct that your problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with the UN not setting up a second state alongside it?


Correct, with  jail for  evil-doers on either side. 





How many offers of statehood have the Pallos rejected since 1947?

Five or six?

Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #143 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:27pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:45pm:
So the problem started by the Jews accepting the UN resolution and Muslims starting a war instead.



(sigh) Yes; of course the Jews accepted the UN Partition resolution - because they were gaining  sovereignty over other people's confiscated land...what's not to like...."what are we waiting for",  said one zionist leader after the vote.

Quote:
And that is the UNSC's fault because they didn't stop the lizard-brained, individual sovereignty Muslims from starting a war despite the clearly expressed will of the UN for common prosperity and peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.
.

Yes,  it is the UNSC's fault for not preventing the unilateral declaration of Israel by Zionists.

Quote:
You talk some really self-contradictory, hare-brained crap.


Refuted above; lizard brains will have trouble understanding the concept of an effective international rules-based order.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #144 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:37pm
 
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:16pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm:
[quote]Am I correct that your problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with the UN not setting up a second state alongside it?


Correct, with  jail for  evil-doers on either side. 





How many offers of statehood have the Pallos rejected since 1947?

Five or six?



Lizard brains on either side want all of Palestine "from the river to the sea".

Hence no "agreement among the parties" - providing a cover for Israel and the US, the stronger side, to keep pushing  the Palestinian  state into the future, while the divided UNSC remains unable to act, courtesy of the veto.    
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #145 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:42pm
 
chimera wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 1:04pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm:
  effective international rules-based order.

Yes the final soution is the Chinese Peoples' Military Province of Palestine-Israel. With naval order in the Western China Sea.


Wrong . China wants to see international peace, while it  develops common prosperity in its own economy.

The Taiwan issue is none of your business.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #146 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:43pm
 
aquascoot wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:54pm:
boo hoo

so the poor old palestinians got displaced


Yes.

boo hoo?




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12980
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #147 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:47pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:19pm:
"establishing an  effective international rules-based order."

Done a great job there so far...................................


Earth to graps: the viability of our species is in question here; in the age of MAD, the risks of NOT having an effective rules-based order loom large.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11596
armidale
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #148 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:07pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:42pm:
China wants to see international peace, while it  develops common prosperity in its own economy.
The Taiwan issue is none of your business.

Thank you so very much. Lovely! 'peace' > 'none of your business'.
Philippines, Australia, India will be under the elegantly simple CHINA RULES!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46572
Gender: male
Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #149 - Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:07pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:45pm:
So the problem started by the Jews accepting the UN resolution and Muslims starting a war instead.



(sigh) Yes; of course the Jews accepted the UN Partition resolution - because they were gaining  sovereignty over other people's confiscated land...what's not to like...."what are we waiting for",  said one zionist leader after the vote.

Quote:
And that is the UNSC's fault because they didn't stop the lizard-brained, individual sovereignty Muslims from starting a war despite the clearly expressed will of the UN for common prosperity and peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.
.

Yes,  it is the UNSC's fault for not preventing the unilateral declaration of Israel by Zionists.

Quote:
You talk some really self-contradictory, hare-brained crap.


Refuted above; lizard brains will have trouble understanding the concept of an effective international rules-based order.


Cheesy Cheesy
The UN VOTED to establish Israel AND and Arab state next to it.
The Jews accepted the rules based decision, the Arabs didn't but started a war instead.
But all that is the UN's fault and the Jews' fault for accepting the UN vote and following the rules an dc th ed Arabs ar e the injured party for not accepting the UN rules but starting a war instead.

You are an idiot. Whose fault is that??
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
Send Topic Print