"With the western allies having been entangled in two destructive and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Benny Morris (Obama's nuclear spring, 24 November) is eager and willing to start a third one. The history professor who now believes that the Nakba in 1948 did not go far enough, with too few Palestinians being ejected out of their land, is now of the opinion that Obama must give Israel the go-ahead for an attack on Iran, to destroy its nuclear potential. The coming war, which he admits will engulf not just the Middle East, but regions far beyond, is, for him and for most Israelis, seemingly unavoidable. Interestingly, there seems to be no problem with a nuclear Israel. Let's hope that for once the US president will show some resolve and fight back against the Zionist lobby, and stop this terrifying prospect of an all-out conflict in the Middle East. The advice given by Morris, Lieberman and Netanyahu is the promise of doom for us all."
The Guardian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Roosevelt goes on: "The world would probably not have gone forward at all, had it not been for the displacement or submersion of savage and barbaric peoples....."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, rings so true. There are certainly parallels today.
Or maybe ya'll believe the "indigenous population" of what is now the US would have indeed one day invented electricity, the car, the plane, the computer, the internet, miracle drugs and such. Sure. HAHAHHAHAHAH
In what way is the UN mission in Afghanistan illegal? If the UN unanimously votes for something, doesnt' that make it legal?
ReplyDeleteI would also point out that the UN endorsed and encouraged nations to contribute to the multinational forces in Iraq from July 2003 on in many unanimous votes. The UN also unanimously voted that the Iraqi Government was completely sovereign and legitimate in June, 2004.
TGIA, you can agree with international law or disagree with international law. Sometimes what is legal is immoral. But it is important to have precision in words.
It seems to me that most here regard the UN as illegitimate, possibly illegal. This is why you seem to regard all UN missions in the world as illegal, including Darfur, Congo, Haiti, Afghanistan, Lebonon, Bosnia, Kosovo, possibly even Cambodia.
Gandhians oppose all armies, police and UN peacekeepers on prinicple. Gandhi believed that police should be disarmed and if they come across a murder, robbery or rape; they should inspire the murderer or rapist to stop their negative activity through Sathya Graha; or the power of self example and compassion.
Is this the true reason that many here seem to oppose all UN peacekeeping missions? Do all of you also favor disarming all police and forcing them to practice nonviolence?
anan
ReplyDeleteDespite what one might thing of the UN (in my case not much) . But your attention only spans 1.5 out of 13 lines of the post and as it happens , it's the beginning ,what happened to substance of the article ? which is the threat of plunging the ME in an unnecessary war (which is what the post is about) .
Are you not capable of reading more than the first few words ? or you're trying to deflect the discussion to your own needs . If I may offer you a friendly advise " Read the whole FUCKING thing"
<span style="">anan
ReplyDeleteDespite what one might thing of the UN (in my case not much) . But your attention only spans 1.5 out of 13 lines of the post "let alone the linked article", and as it happens it's the beginning of it,what happened to substance of the article ? that is : the threat of plunging the ME in an unnecessary war (which is what the post/article<span style=""><span style=" line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style=""><span style="">is about) . </span></span></span>
<span style="">Are you not capable of reading more than the first few words ? or you're trying to deflect the discussion to your own needs . If I may offer you a friendly advise " Read the whole FUCKING thing"</span>
Anan
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I'll have to remind you that I DID NOT write the article, it's from the Guardian. You can argue the guy's points but you'll have to read the article first and not react to key words only.
And what on earth does Gandhi have anything to do here!
ReplyDeleteIt is stretching quite a bit the terms of the UN Security Council's resolution 1368 of September 12, 2001, to justify an open-ended war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Now we are in 2009, eight years after 2001. Is there really a legal basis for the US to drop bombs over villages in Pakistan and to occupy Afghanistan indefinitely with foreign troops? This is stretching the UN charter to the limit to say that it now permits the permanent military occupation of a sovereign country by foreign troops.
ReplyDeleteR.S. there have been many unamimous UNSC resolutions since 1368 regarding Afghanistan. Have you forgotten UNAMA? Who created ISAF? Remember the UNSC unanimously requested the formation of ISAF and for all countries to contribute to it?
ReplyDeleteIs there any country on earth that does not regard the GIRoA as the sole legitimate government of Afghanistan? If the GIRoA wants ISAF and UNAMA help, and they have repeatedly stated that they do; that is their right.
r.s. you have a point on Pakistan. As you know, the Pakistani government jointly conducts all drone strikes with the US. They have joint sovereignty over them. Do you think that the Pakistani government has the sovereign right to order drone strikes in their own country? The reason the Pakistani government allows the drone strikes is because without them, the Taliban might have defeated the Pakistani Army.
Remember that the main war is between the Taliban and the Pakistani Army. The war in Afghanistan is a side show.
I commented on "two destructive and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
ReplyDeleteRegarding Iran, Cheney said that he wanted to attack Iran and no one in the Bush administration agreed with him. The odds of the chosen one attacking Iran are small. If an attack happens it will be by Israel/Saudi Arabia. I don't think they will attack soon.
Notice that the Iraqi government is increasing spending on their army again. Why? Instablity in Iran. They aren't sure who is in charge now, and who will be in charge soon. They are preparing for a possible Iranian crisis.