Australian Politics Forum - WW3? An informed conservative perspective

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #180 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 4:25pm

Quote:

Er...even Frank noted the UN granted itself the right to create states.

I hearby grant myself the right to create states.

See how easy that was?

Quote:

Which means ...create two states.

Do you understand the difference between sanction an action and acting?

Quote:

Sure, in your delusional national sovereingty/ "individual freedom" ideology which rejects establishing effective international law.

No. I mean in reality. States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order. It is your delusion that having the paperwork in order makes them magically pop into existence.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2024 at 5:29pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46568
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #181 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 5:05pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 3:46pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 2:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 1:09pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 12:12pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 11:42am:

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 10:58am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2024 at 10:52am:

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2024 at 4:11pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2024 at 1:49pm:

[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1712872603/160#160 date=1713238987][quote author=freediver link=1712872603/159#159 date=1713234204]The UN put Iran in as the chair of the human rights council.

I agree - madness: however, sorry to inform you the UN's madness results from your delusional 'individual rights/individual sovereigtny' ideology which crippled the UN from its inception (including the UNSC veto).

So if not by bringing together individual, sovereign nations to form the United Nations - then how would you bring the world together?

By instituting examination in the UNGA of necessary UN reform, including the need to eliminate the UNSC veto.

How is that to be done?

The resolution to create Israel AND an Arab state next to is was not vetoed.

Because the Arab world wasn't represented in the UNSC.

Quote:

So what is the relevance of the veto power in the case of Israel and Hamarse?

The US alone has consistently vetoed resolutions condemning Israel, since 1967.

Quote:

You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree.

Refuted above.

There was NO security council role in the vote for the creation of TWO states.

The flaw in your argument is the UN failed to implement its Partiton Plan in full, and since 1967 the US has used its UNSC veto to prevent implementation of the Plan.

Quote:

The Arabs simply did not accept to play by the rules, not then, not since.

The Muslims started the wars in 1948 and again in 1967 DESPITE the UN resolution to create the two states.

The UN Partition resolution was intended to create two states, not to let one side force its own way when the other side (naturally) objected to the partition of their land.

The UN patently failed to create the two states; Israel should never have been recognized WITHOUT the creation of the Palestinian state as well.

Quote:

The UN couldn't force anyone, it has never had the moral or military power to 'implement' anything,

Because your delusional "national sovereignty" ideology rendered the UN powerless to maintian the peace - by force when necessary; just as a police force within a nation has to maintain the peace by force, to avoid chaos.

Quote:

regardless of security council veto. Only member states can implement UN resolutions, supply peace keepers or militarily enforce they will, supported or not by the UN.

Addressed above; the veto renders the UNSC incapable of maintaining peace between belligerents, whereas as a national police force CAN establish peace - by force - between warring criminal gangs within a nation.

Quote:

The Muslims have not been acting in good faith because they have not accepted Israel's right to exist or the UN's jurisdiction to endorse the creation of two states. They want a Judenfrei Muslim middle East.

Correct (but see above, Israel should not have been recognized without recognition of the Palestinian state).

Quote:

Your endless waffle about UNSC veto is totally irrelevant. You never once shown how it has ANY relevance to the creation of Israel in 1948, to the armistice in 1949 or to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan.

Addressed and refuted above. Let me know when you are ready to establish effective international law, capable of over-riding anachronistic 'national sovereignty'.

You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UNSC veto powers have any relevance to the creation of Israel.
You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UN could have its own military force, how it could create states, or prevent the creation of states.
You just repeat irrelevant non sequiturs and declare them 'refuted above. Ludicrous. It is like debating a 3 year old obcessive-compulsive with severely restricted vocab and retarded comprehension.

The UN resolution approved the creation of Israel and an Arab state alongside it.
The Jews accepted the approval and created a state (NB. the UN did not create it) while the Arabs did not accept the approval and the Jews' creation of their own state so they did not similarly create an Arab state but went to war instead.
Note also that it was the existing sovereign Arab states that went to war against the Jews. They went against the UN resolution.

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 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #182 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:06pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 4:25pm:

Quote:

Er...even Frank noted the UN granted itself the right to create states.

I hearby grant myself the right to create states.

See how easy that was?

Ere...you are not an agreed upon institution (the UN) with a Charter to which all nations are signed up.

Quote:

Which means ...create two states.

Quote:

Do you understand the difference between sanction an action and acting?

Yes. The vote to partiton Palestine - passed by a majorty - envisioned two states. Sanction is your word.

Quote:

No. I mean in reality. States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order.

You mean your 'subjective reality'.....oh dear...

Addressed above. The Charter was agreed and signed, though your delusional - or rather, anachronistic and obsolete national sovereignty ideology - forced the veto into the UNSC, rendering it useless and incapable of "saving mankind from the scourge of war".

Quote:

It is your delusion that having the paperwork in order makes them magically pop into existence.

Refuted above; re delusions, don't look in the mirror unless you want a trip to Bunnings.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #183 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:17pm

Quote:

You mean your 'subjective reality'.....oh dear...

No. I mean objective reality. States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order.

Quote:

The Charter was agreed and signed

And the signing of the charter made absolutely no difference to the reality on the ground in Israel.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #184 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:32pm

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:

You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UNSC veto powers have any relevance to the creation of Israel.
You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UN could have its own military force, how it could create states, or prevent the creation of states.
You just repeat irrelevant non sequiturs and declare them 'refuted above. Ludicrous.

I disagree, but let's read on, maybe we can expose your errors:

Quote:

The UN resolution approved the creation of Israel and an Arab state alongside it.

Correct.

Quote:

The Jews accepted the approval and created a state

The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law.

Quote:

(NB. the UN did not create it)

Correct - and the UN should have refused recognition of Israel, without simultaneous recognition of Palestine with necessary security supplied by the UNSC.

Quote:

while the Arabs did not accept the approval and the Jews' creation of their own state so they did not similarly create an Arab state but went to war instead.

Naturally the Arabs rejected Israel, which was carved out of Muslim lands, resulting in Muslims being expelled from their homes by Jewish forces in the ensuing battles.

Quote:

Note also that it was the existing sovereign Arab states that went to war against the Jews. They went against the UN resolution.

Correct, as addressed above.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #185 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:44pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:

Quote:

You mean your 'subjective reality'.....oh dear...

No. I mean objective reality.

You are confused between objective and subjective, as your following comment proves:

Quote:

States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order.

The UN "paperwork" was never "in order" - though it certainly existed - because the necessary security arrangements were stuffed by your obsolete 'national sovereignty' ideology. Last time I looked, the Oz Constitution was written on paper. The difference is the supra-national UN role, under internationl law.

Quote:

And the signing of the charter made absolutely no difference to the reality on the ground in Israel.

Addressed above. Israel unilaterally proclaimed its existance after the UN Charter was signed, an illegal act under the Charter.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #186 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:49pm

Quote:

The UN "paperwork" was never "in order" - though it certainly existed - because the necessary security arrangements were stuffed

Are you saying the "paperwork was not in order" because of the absence of a real life army moving in and actually doing it?

Quote:

Last time I looked, the Oz Constitution was written on paper.

That by itself means absolutely nothing.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46568
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #187 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:36pm

Quote:

The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law.*

The UN approved the creation of the two states side by side.
The Jews accepted the UN's resolution, the Arabs didn't.
On what basis do you say the Jews had no right to create a state along the approved UN lines?

What other international law requirement was missing?

The approval of Muslims who have been hellbent on wiping them out since the 7th century, in accordance with they creed that says there will be peace only when all the Jews are killed by Muslims?

* Give us ONE example where the UN created a state, you eyewateringly stupid ijit, and the international law that empowers it to do so.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 48719
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #188 - Apr 24^th, 2024 at 8:13pm

I think the Moslems have been fighting Christians for so long as their justified reason to exist.

That fighting Jews coming up from behind (and within) is something that they're really not up for.
Israel was more than happy to 'war' with Iran (despite all the American Propaganda experts saying 'no way' to hide the fact that Israel is more 'military' in culture, than the USA is).
And as you saw - Iran 'backed down' and made excuses. Obviously realising Israel isn't afraid of 'death and anihilation'... a path that Islam is yet to experience.

The 'Empire' of Israel is rising!
The Empire of Islam is falling.

Suck it up! Grin

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46568
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #189 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 8:06am

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2024 at 9:09am:

Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started in a malicious act of depravity

It beggars belief that even the terrorists of Hamas and other organisations of similar bent, could engage in the murder and abuse of innocents as we now know for certain occurred on October 7.

Take for example the people attending the rock concert, dedicated to peace.

Murder, rape and kidnapping were the consequences of Hamas crossing the border.

...

US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, put this clearly on April 9 last: “It remains astounding to me that the world is almost deafeningly silent when it comes to Hamas”. The terrorists are never taken before international courts, nor is its leadership ever brought to book and held responsible.

"If I were a Palestinian, I'd occasionally wonder what I had to do to get a bad press."

Just so.

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 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #190 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 10:39am

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:49pm:

Are you saying the "paperwork was not in order" because of the absence of a real life army moving in and actually doing it?

Yes, ie, because the "real life army" ie, the "army" representing combined UNSC security force had not been created.

Quote:

That by itself means absolutely nothing.

You are the one bleating about "paperwork".

Are you saying it's impossible to create international law?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #191 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 10:46am

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 10:39am:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:49pm:

Are you saying the "paperwork was not in order" because of the absence of a real life army moving in and actually doing it?

Yes, ie, because the "real life army" ie, the "army" representing combined UNSC security force had not been created.

Quote:

That by itself means absolutely nothing.

You are the one bleating about "paperwork".

Are you saying it's impossible to create international law?

I am saying you can create all the international law you want, but if cannot project the authority to enforce it then it is meaningless, just like the UN resolutions were meaningless for the Israelis when they set up their new state. Their actions happened to be consistent with it, given that both the Israelis and the UN had a little common sense, but you can hardly blame the Israelis for a functioning state of palestine not magically popping into existence at the stroke of the pen.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #192 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:15am

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:36pm:

Quote:

The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law.*

The UN approved the creation of the two states side by side.

Correct

Quote:

The Jews accepted the UN's resolution, the Arabs didn't.

Correct.

Quote:

On what basis do you say the Jews had no right to create a state along the approved UN lines?

On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto).

Quote:

What other international law requirement was missing?

Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today.

Quote:

The approval of Muslims who have been hellbent on wiping them out since the 7th century, in accordance with they creed that says there will be peace only when all the Jews are killed by Muslims?

Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels.

Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege.....

Quote:

Give us ONE example where the UN created a state, you eyewateringly stupid ijit, and the international law that empowers it to do so.

You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage.

Re the UN's ability to create a state:

https://kentlaw.iit.edu/

The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ...

Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #193 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:18am

Quote:

On the basis only the UN itself can create states

Under international law you cannot force people to be stateless. Yet that is what would happen if you insisted the locals could not "create a state" until the UN did.

In any case I am pretty sure you understanding of the international law is wrong.

Quote:

Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today.

So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12979
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #194 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:25am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 10:46am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 10:39am:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:49pm:

Are you saying the "paperwork was not in order" because of the absence of a real life army moving in and actually doing it?

Yes, ie, because the "real life army" ie, the "army" representing combined UNSC security force had not been created.

Quote:

That by itself means absolutely nothing.

You are the one bleating about "paperwork".

Are you saying it's impossible to create international law?

I am saying you can create all the international law you want, but if cannot project the authority to enforce it then it is meaningless,

Remarkable, we are in agreement.

Quote:

just like the UN resolutions were meaningless for the Israelis when they set up their new state.

....BECAUSE the UNSC cannot "project the authority to enforce the law".

... because of YOUR outdated 'national sovereigty/ individual "freedom" ideology. Ouch.

Quote:

Their actions happened to be consistent with it, given that both the Israelis and the UN had a little common sense,

No, the Zionists were self-interested, and the UN was incompetent, as noted above.

Back to top

IP Logged