Flashback :Some of our weapons are missing
It may be no suprise that the Americans have been unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have considerable trouble finding their own stuff .
A couple of years ago they 'lost' US$900 million of their own kit, a sum not far off the entire Iraqi military budget for the same year. Items lost include an entire missile guidance system and a number of helicopters.
In 2003 reports suggested an even bigger problem when the defence department inspectorate found the Pentagon couldn't account for a part of its US$400 billion annual budget, including fifty six aircraft , thirty two tanks and thirty six javelin missile command lanuch units ,which had simply gone missing.
With so many weapons missing and unaccounted for , it might have been more prudent for the Pentagon to start searching for their own weapons first before they began looking for Saddam'sInteresting flashback from the talent that is Bremner,Bird and Fortune 'you are here'
You have a great Blog. I would love to link to you. My readers would find your posts very interesting. Just submit it to my site at BlogIntroduction.com
Thankyou for your kind words . I have as you request submitted my site to blogintroduction
British MP Robin Cook dies
Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook, 59, has died after collapsing while hill walking in north-west Scotland.
It is believed he was taken ill while walking with his wife Gaynor on Ben Stack
Mr Cook was flown by helicopter to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, with attempts made to resucitate him.
After Labour's landslide win, he entered the Cabinet as foreign secretary.
A Cabinet reshuffle after the 2001 Labour victory saw him replaced at the Foreign Office by Jack Straw, with Mr Cook instead given the job of Leader of the Commons.
He resigned that position in the lead-up to the conflict in Iraq in protest over Tony Blair's decision to go to war.
Out of respect to Robin I leave you with a few quotes from his historic resignation speech at the House of Commons on the 17th of March 2003
'Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.'
'None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.'
'Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target'
'Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?'
'Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government. '
A rare phenomenon a politician that told us the truth and resigned with integrity
Rest in peace Robin
Yep, he's gone, the voting reform lobby has lost a friend...http://lg-domain.blogdrive.com/
Sixty Years ago today the worlds first weapon of mass destruction was used. About 140,000 people were killed by the bomb and its aftermath.
Today is not a day for the arguments about it's use .Today is the day to remember all those innocent lives wiped off the face of the planet and all those who still suffer today from the effects
Tallest wave ever recorded
Hurricane Ivan generated a wave more than 90 feet (27 metres) high - thought to be the tallest and most intense ever measured - scientists have revealed.
It would have dwarfed a 10-storey building and had the power to snap a ship in half - but never reached land.
You may be wondering why i am posting this on a site about terrorism ?
the answer is simple . to ignore global warming , to think purely in the terms of self , my car , my job , my air conditioning in my view is an act of terrorism at least equal to the barbaric acts committed by those we call terrorists
this type of report will sadly only continue to get worse
more details Here
what if the earth is just going through warming cycles and cooling cycles like it always has?
Not saying we dont impact the enviroment, just saying we may not be the root cause of all evil. There were no SUV's before the last Ice Age...
Nobody has said the last ice age was due to Mankinds abuse of the planet .. anyway
interesting thought G apart from the fact that 99 % of the worlds scientists disagree with you . and these are the people in the position to know
but even if you refuse to accept the opinion of the smartest people on the planet .. it is one hell of a gamble to take for your children
dont you think ?
they have never been able to come out with hard science, not even theory, only hypothisis on the impact they think we are having. I just wonder if the scientific community are being a bit egotistical in thinking that we can have that dramatic of an effect on a planet that has been around billions of years. Especially when all of this "Global Warming" has only been happening for about 80-90 years.
And it seems a little too coincidental that this is comming about, and oh yeah, by the way, we also saw that this exact same stuff happned about 10,000 years ago... but that time it was because of natural ecological shifts, but THIS time, its because of EVIL SUV's
just tryin to push your buttons
I think you need to do some research on what scientists are really saying rather then saying they are not coming up with any clear hard facts .. they are ... and plenty of them
i will just pick up one point .. SUV gas consumption or in simple terms fossil fuel consumption
A new study of the effects of global warming on oceans by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego contains the first clear scientific evidence that the indisputable rise in global mean temperatures called global warming can only be the result of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Skeptics - including the Bush Administration which has always maintained that global warming science is uncertain - have up until now insisted that evidence of warming could not be connected only to greenhouse gas emissions because climate change is 'natural', i.e. not human caused so nothing economic has to change. Given the complexity of climate cycles, they argued that climate change science confused the effects of volcanism, celestial positioning or variable solar activity.
Skeptics have always been a very small minority of scientists studying climate change and most skeptics have been funded by fossil fuel business, but their minority opinion has been used to confuse the public and paralyze efforts to reduce greenhouse gas production.
The evidence derived by American scientists using powerful computer models to study data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may be able to squash the skeptics:
“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,”
so which is it , irational , an oil company executive or a believer in the world of Bush G ? :o)
more seriously . this is just a pointer to show how it is now scientific fact in the US , many nations accepted this yeats ago .. but their politicians were not in the pocket of the oil money .. so it was easier for them to see the truth
ps .. my reply was less technical and therefore more readable .. if you really want the scientific proof of the connection between fosil fuels and the state of the planet i will be glad to oblige but it is very heavy reading
Amnesty enters the row on Iraqi constitution
Even before the final draft of the Iraqi constitution has been finalised ,concerns have been building over the type of Iraq being brought into effect .
Amnesty international have today added their voice to the concern of the future of human rights in the new Iraq
Amnesty have asked the Iraqi government to look again at the following issues
'address concerns that Islam may be used to perpetuate discrimination against women and ensure that the constitution prohibits unequivocally discrimination on the basis of gender and promotes women's full rights;
prohibit discrimination on all grounds included in international human rights treaties;
make a specific reference to international human rights law as one of the sources of national legislation. In case of conflict between national and international laws, the Constitution should specify that international law should prevail;
emphasise that all human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social are protected and are indivisible;
protect the rights of the child as guaranteed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the definition of the child as "every human being below the age of eighteen", as well as the prohibition of the recruitment or enlistment of children under 18 years into armed forces (or groups), and their use in hostilities;
abolish the death penalty which Amnesty International considers to be the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to life;
establish universal jurisdiction for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extra-judicial executions and "disappearances".
prohibit discrimination and protect rights to all those under the jurisdiction of Iraq, according to international human rights law, and not only to Iraq citizens. Only specific rights can be limited to citizens, in a way consistent with international human rights law'
more details Here
Double Standards ?
Fox news presenter Bill O'Reilly has said that he would personally execute all those who kill civilians whilst not in uniform ... strange concept Bill ... what about those that kill civilians whilst in uniform ?
what about those that die under US interrogation ?
what about the pilot of planes that drop there bombs on shelters and TV stations ?
what about the people of fallujah ?
and equally important Bill these are strange views for a catholic ?
watch the video Here
Insurgents release video of attack on marines
The Iraqi Inusrgants today released a new video showing the horrific attack on the US marines on the 1st of August .
The video shows the true horror of war including footage of the dead soldiers and is already availible at over 100 web sites
As is my policy on this site i will not be linking to this film that is obviously designed to create shock and would just add to the already tragic grief to the families
What suprises me is the speed that the insurgents can get there information out to the world , for three years almost daily new reports and new videos are being broadcast and made availible on the internet.
"terrorist" v/s freedom fighter.
Freedom Fighters dont need to video their carnage, because their goal is not to scare the world.
I know, I know...
this is a horrific film G and you wont find me defending it in any way .. however neither did you find me defending the filming of saddams two sons , or the photos of torture at abhu grahb
i really wish i lived in a world where i could condem this 'and' be able to feel that our hands were clean too
sadly 3 more marines have died today and my thoughts go out to the families . as my thoughts go out to all the families that have suffered in this war
Our government never tried to realease the Abu Grahb... that was our "Liberal" Friends...
to be fair .. the official insurgents did not take this film .. it was some of the foot soldiers ... the same as it was the foot soldiers that took the photos at abu grahb
New Al-Qaida video threatens the UK and US
Al-Qaida's second in command Ayman al-Zawahri has warned Britain in a video aired on Thursday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's policies will bring more destruction to London.
He also warned the United States that al-Qaida would continue to launch deadly attacks until US troops quit all Muslim countries.
snippets from the transcript below
"Blair's policies brought you destruction in central London and will bring you more destruction ... "
"What you have seen in New York, Washington and Afghanistan, are only the initial losses and if you (United States) continue the same hostile policies you will see what will make you forget those horrors,"
"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Shaikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine, and until all your infidel armies leave Prophet Mohammad's lands,"
"There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers"Ayman Zawhiri,Al-Qaida's second in command"The Americans... will see horror that would make them forget the horror they saw in Vietnam,"
"The truth that (President George) Bush ... hides from you is that there is an exit from Iraq except through immediate withdrawal. Any delay will mean only more dead and losses".
"If you do not leave today, you will inevitably leave tomorrow,but only after (you suffer losses) of tens of thousands of dead and many more injured."
Thursday will bring 'massive police operation' in London
Police in London are taking no chances today and will today deploy More than 6,000 officers, many armed to the streets of London.
It is two weeks today since the failed 21 July bombings and four since the 7 July attacks in which 56 people died. And quit rightly the Police are not willing to take chances today and will go all out to cover as much of the transport system as possible .
The Met has revelaed that extra officers have been brought in from outside the capital and retired officers have been persuaded to return to help with the anti-terror work.
Police have said that a high-visibility presence will aim to make people feel safer while undercover officers mingle with commuters on Tubes and buses trying to spot bombers.
It should be noted that no specific warning of any attack has been issued by the police at this time .
there must be some creditable threat to illicit this response. Good on them, I am always appreciative when I see pro-active action.
might shock you here G but I agree with you on both points
Iraqis Accuse Kuwait of Stealing Oil
Iraqi legislators accused Kuwait of stealing their oil as well as chipping away at their national territory on the border — allegations similar to those used by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion of Kuwait that began 15 years ago Tuesday
Nothing changes it seems
full story Here
Wasnt this why Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991?
Yes exactly why .. the only key difference i can see is that
... in 1991 saudi and kuwait also did some price fixing of the oil market to price saddam out of the game
it would be tragic to have all this end up with no progress at all at the other end and at the moment , thats where it seems to be going
UK Government helped Israel get the A Bomb
The BBC Newsnight program has discovered documents that proove the UK government helped Israel to aquire the atomic bomb
'1958, Britain agreed to sell Israel 20 tonnes of heavy water, a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium at Israel's top secret Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. '
British officials decided it would be "over-zealous" to impose safeguards on the Israelis, and chose not to insist that Israel only use the heavy water for peaceful purposes
More extraordinary, the archives suggest that the decision to sell heavy water was taken simply by civil servants, mainly in the Foreign Office and the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
asked if the Government at the time would have known about the deal former Conservative Defence and Foreign Office minister Lord Gilmour said One must assume they must have known ... And what's more they seemed to have no idea of the political or indeed even the technical and foreign policy implications of what they were doing. They just seemed to be concerned with making a bit of money."
"On the whole I would prefer NOT to mention this to the Americans," stated Donald Cape of the Foreign Office. When contacted by Newsnight this week,
I bet you would Donald
full newsnight story Here
for those in the UK the BBC will be showing a newsnight special tonight at 10:30 on this issue .. to those outside the UK you 'may' be able to watch on the Newsnight(bbc) web site
Insurgents claim they have captured US marine !
I have just picked up this story coming out of Reuters -
'An Iraqi insurgent group said on Wednesday it has captured a U.S. Marine who was wounded in a clash in western Iraq in which eight other Marines were killed.
The Army of Ansar al-Sunna said on its Web site that it would soon issue pictures of the Marine, who it said it captured after ambushing U.S. forces near the town of Haditha, northwest of Baghdad. It did not say when it carried out the attack.
The statement could not be verified immediately'
more details Here
UK: Crimes against muslims increase
There were 269 crimes in three weeks after the 7 July bombings, compared with 40 in the same period of last year
it does seem that most of the crimes at this point are minor offences but the police do need to make sure they enforce there zero tollerance policy fully before this gets out of hand
a 600 % increase in hate crime is a growth that needs to be seen as urgent
14 US marines killed in Iraq
the BBC is rrpoting that Fourteen marines and their civilian translator have been killed in a roadside bombing in north-western Iraq, the US military says.
It is one of the deadliest attacks on US forces since the 2003 invasion
my thoughts go to the families of the 14
this surely can not go on like thisBBC
The US versus the UN 1972-2004
In honour of a certain Mr Bolton gaining new employment this week, I present this list for those that have a interest in the history
This is a complete list of the times the United States has decided to use its veto in the United Nations (not just the security council)
By comparison , the number of times each of the other countries that can veto something and have decided to do so is in the same period is as follows
Before I start (or get complaints) a few things should be noted when reading this list
(1) This list originally appeared online around the 23rd of march 2003 , it was obtained from the United Nations itself and any errors may well have been corrected in the united nations by now ,any votes after march 2003 have been added by myself , the titles have all been modified to sumurise the subject contained within
(2) As you probably know only five nations on planet earth can veto a security council resolution (the four listed above and the US)
(3) Most items that come up at the United Nations do not get to the point of veto (example the second resolution required to go to war with Iraq). If any country believes that one of the five will veto then as the US did in 2003, they dont even bother to put it to a vote (it is better not to try than to fail)
(4) The title in each item on the list represents the general accepted definition of what 'world law' was trying to be brought into effect and it would be unfair of me in defence of the United States to not accept the fact that on many of these there may well have been a clause that genuinly was 'unacceptable' to the US , however it should also be noted that on the majority of occasions, the USA vetoed resolutions that were favoured by the majority of the world's nations.
(5) I have not included the year of each vote for reasons of space but the list does run in the order that the resolutions where voted on the first in 1972 and the last in 2004 but if you cant find the year ask and i will supply
(6) I have not inlcuded the actual votes cast due to space although this is proabably the most telling .. on the votes regarding israel mainly the votes in favour are around 120 to 140 countries , the votes against are 2 (israel and the US) . On the votes that are not about israel in around 90 percent of cases the votes in favour are around 120 to 140 countries and the votes against are 1 (it is the veto that counts) if you can not find the information yourself and wish to know the vote count of any resolution ask and i will supply
(7) If the same resolution is listed in more then one place in the list this is due to the United nations having another go trying to pass the law at a later point that year or a later year and is not down to duplication and should be viewed as a seperate event
(8) The point I aim to make here is in the general and not the specific , it is to show the range and scope of US vetoes and the huge disparity between the US and its security council partners
(9) Taking note of pointa (8) and (10) please . If you believe there is some aspect in the defence of this huge US disparity then inform me and if valid , I will aim to include it here in the issue of fairness.
(10) In any document that covers such a huge area of detail and time , errors will be found , this is accidental and will be changed if the error is pointed out
(11)for those who are not into suicide reading i have highlighted the more interesting votes. I have made the choice not to highlight the huge number of votes regarding israel (regardless of how serious)as this is NOT the point of my post and is covered in a million other places already and i believe would only encourage people to deflect from the point.THE LIST
the United states used it's veto to prevent all of the following from passing through the United NationsCondemn Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
Condemns South Africa's attempts to impose apartheid on Namibia.
For the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations.
Condemns the apartheid situation in South Africa.
Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
For a United Nations Conference on Women.
To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories.
Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
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.
Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
Calls for the ending of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.(ed: yes its true :o) )
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
Concerns changes to the United Nations accounting methods.
Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions.
Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
Demands that Israel cease excavations in areas of East Jerusalem considered by the United Nations to be part of the occupied territories.
Condemns Israel for bombing Iraqi nuclear installations.
Condemns Israeli policy regarding living conditions of the Palestinian people.
To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East
To establish rights for the Palestinian people.
To clarify the status of Jerusalem.
Discusses Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip.
Concering the rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.
Concerning revenues from Palestinian refugees' properties.
Establishment of the University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees.
Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories.
Condemns Israel closing of universities in occupied territories.
Opposes Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories.
Affirms the non-applicability of Israeli law over the Golan Heights.
Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
For the ratification of the convention on the suppression and punishment of apartheid.
To promote international action against apartheid.
Condemns apartheid in sports.
Calls for the cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa.
Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology
Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space.
Supports a new world information and communications order.
Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.(again)
Development of international law.
To prevent the exclusion of certain United Nations employees.
Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
Implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
Concerning the adequacy of facilities of the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia.
Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
Restructuring international economic relations towards establishing a new international economic order.
Afirms 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.
Resolutions against apartheid South Africa.
Prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
Concerning international law.
Concerning the Transport and Communications Decade in Africa.
Prohibition of manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction.
Reversing the arms race.
Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. (yet again)
Requests a study on the naval arms race.
Concerning disarmament and security.
Strengthening the United Nations to respond to natural and other disasters.
Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
International action to eliminate apartheid.
Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
Condemns Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear installation.
On the elimination of racial discrimination.
Affirms the rights of the Palestinian people.
For the convening of a Middle East peace conference.
Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction.
Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
Concerning the law of the sea.
Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories.
Condemns assassination attempts against Palestinian mayors.
Condemns Israel for failing to place its nuclear facilities under international safeguards.
Concerning a nuclear test ban.
To study military research and development.
Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Proposing economic assistance to the Palestinian people.
Support for the United Nations Industrial Development Organsiation.
Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa.
Questions regarding the Economic Commission for Western Asia.
Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development.
Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities.
Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
To set up a zone of peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic.
To eliminate existing imbalances in the information and communications fields.
To Strengthen of international security. ( the UN way not the US way)
Dialogue to improve the international situation.
For the establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security.
Declaration on the right to development.
Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers.
Protection against products harmful to health and the environment.
Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
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.
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.(this was in 1987 the US government was not so fussy then)
Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade.
Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
Opposition to nuclear testing.
Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace"
Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Condemns USA invasion of Panama.( well obviously they wouldnt vote for this one )
Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.(or this one)
Condemns USA for shooting down 2 Libyan aircraft.(cough or this one)
Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.(erm now this is getting silly)
Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.( ah after this the US gets a break)
Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.( no iraq war or any war without this one)
Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
to send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.
To set up the International Criminal Court.
To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.
Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.
Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.
To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba. (oops back in the charts )
Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.
Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.
end of list
out of the 191 items listed, 58 of them involved Condemming Israel for something, and 9 more Condemned the USA for something, 2 were something about the Gaza strip.... are we seeing a trend here? I did this using just a word find in MS Word, so we will say give or take a few.
Now, none of them contained UK, France, China, Iran, or Iraq... well, except one that Condemned Israel for bombing an Iraqi nuke site.
But you still insist the UN isnt anti-American, or anti-Semite?
yes i do
the list is (1) only of the us vetos WHY WOULD THE LIST CONTAIN THINGS THE US DID NOT VETO . HUNDREDS OF LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT CONDEM THE UK , FRANCE , CHINA IRAN AND IRAQ AND MANY MORE . THESE ARE NOT IN QUESTION if you want me to do a list for any other country then of course i will supply but it will be a much smaller list
IF 140 COUNTRIES CONDEM ISRAEL FOR AN ACTION YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT ALL 140 ARE ANTI SEMITE !!!!
THEY HIJAKED A PLANE FOR GOD SAKE !!!
this list is selective .. i repeat in ONLY contains the laws that the US have blocked so of course the list contains the US and ISRAEL
if you want every law that does not contain israel or the US then i am sorry i dont have the bandwith .. you have missed the point here G .. again the list ONLY contains laws that the US has vetoed
do you really think the US should never be condemed ??? ever ??? for anything ???
britain had the same issue with the falklands and with the suez crisis .. it is the shear number that i am pointing out
the united nations is NOT racist and NOT anti US
i warned in my point i didnt want to get into discussing israel .. israel can NEVER be condemed by the united nations for anything ever because regardless of what israel does the US will veto any complaint ... is that racist ?
this post is not about israel .. at all .. i have not highlighted a single israeli issue
it is the statistics not the spefics G
else we get into why did the US refuse to support a war on terror in 1988 etc .. that is would be shallow
ythe question comes down to whether anyone should have a veto at all
saddam hides chemical weapons and gets condemed but say america invades a soveriegn country but isnt .. why ... because it has the VETO
it is the VETO the post is about
i think i must have made my point now ?
previous comment deleted by me due to duplication
looks up and mutters " it is about the VETO G " .. mumble mumble mumble
It looks like Israel has the US in it's back pocket. When exactly did we become Israel's bitch? And I Don't see anything anti-semetic in anything the U.N has done. And I'm Jewish. Don't confuse Judaism with Zionism, two different things all together.
(totally unrelated); Here is a link to an amazing documentary about the neo-cons. It is an hour and ten minutes but well worth it. H you will enjoy it, if you get a chance watch.
G, I would love to here you opinion about this documentary, If you have an extra hour to kill.
ah thankyou thankyou thankyou phishy . i thought i would be mumbling "the veto" all night .. i am pleased you see the point here
as for the video .. information clearing house is one of my main sources the guy is a star ! so i will give it a watch .. but i wont link to him for he has asked people not to link direct to the movies for he has limited bandwith
another link you might like H is;
We arent Israel's bitch phishy. But the UN is ready to condemn the Israelies for anything they ever do against the precious Palestinians. The world is one big hypocrite with them. They all want Israel to treat them so nice, yet no one else really helps them a bit....
Phishy, I almost never have an hour to kill. If you can, do your best to paraphrase, and shoot me an email at "email@example.com"
I will objectivly read it and then come back to discuss.
I HAVE to get to work now, later
Blair statement on the death of King Fahd
"King Fahd was a man of great vision and leadership who inspired his countrymen for a quarter of a century as King, and for many more before that. He served his country with the utmost dedication and dignity. He led Saudi Arabia through a period of unparalleled prosperity and development.
He was also a good friend of the United Kingdom. Our two countries have benefited very greatly over the years from his wise advice. Under his guidance we have developed extremely close political, commercial and defence links. They will always be seen as his legacy"
well thats Tony's statement as for my thoughts
I wish no disrespect to the departed . i will just say that as i am sure many of you know King Fahd could have his legacy described in many ways
It is a strange situation in Saudi anyway .. King Fahd has not had anything to do with running the country for many years and passed away at the age of 84
Fahd had been frail since suffering a stroke in 1995 and had delegated his powers to Crown Prince Abdullah though his actions upto 1995 are subject to many different interpretations
with the new king(Abdullah) i believe at the ripe old age of 82 this could be a turning point in the country
which way ... well if you ask me it doesnt look good
SAS Link to Brazilian shot on train
Quite a few details have been announced since i last posted on the killing of a Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes on the London Underground .
It now seems clear
(1) the suspect was not wearing a thick coat (it was a denim jacket)
(2) the suspect did not jump the barrier (the man seen jumping the barrier was a police officer)
(3) the 'police' did not issue any kind of warning before shooting the man
(4) as a "suspected suicide bomber" it may suprise you that the suspect travelled on a bus to get to the train station and was not prevented from doing so
(5) the suspect was shot 8 times and not 5 as first reports claim
Now a new detail has come to light ...
It seems the British SAS are also linked into this tragic event
The London Times is reporting that 'Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan police firearms unit.
The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was carrying a specially modified Heckler & Koch G3K rifle with a shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it — a combination used by the SAS'
The Ministry of Defence insisted last week that the military involvement was limited in the operation that led to de Menezes’s death. “We would describe it as technical assistance as part of a police-led operation under police control,” a spokeswoman said. “It is a particular military capability that the police can draw on if needed. It was a low-level involvement in support of a police-controlled operation.”
now we must question if this is true ..
was Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 killed by a crack SAS team and not the police as we have been told ?
full story Here
of SAS link ..
sources for points 1-5 above are from various informed locations over the last week , all are availible to you on request
'Guantanamo trials rigged'
ABC is reporting that the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.
Two significant emails have been revealed that seem to show that Donald Rumsfield promise to stick as close as possible to the geneva convention is pure rhetoric
prosecutor Major Robert Preston said in the email
"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people,"
"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."
the second email is from prosecutor, Captain John Carr states
"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.
"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
full story from abc hERE
Dictatorships for dummies
Here is a question for you
who made the following three statements
(1) "We will not continue to tolerate the persecution of the minority, the killing of the many , and their forcible removal under the most cruel conditions. I should despair of any honourable future for my own people if we were not , in one way or another , to solve this question".
(2) "He had a reign of terror. He hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his terrorism he has succeded in reducing millions of his people to silence.The maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a force of danger . I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings".
(3) "It is impossible to stand by and watch millions belonging to a great, an ancient civilized people be denied rights by their government . I have determined therefore to place the help of our country at the service of these people".
Any Ideas ?
Sounds like one of the good guys doesn't it
George Bush maybe ?
Tony Blair ?
These three statements were all made by that famous member of the human race called
It is funny what a leader will say to get the people to support his war on Ter.. ooops i mean blitzkrieg
Wouldnt happen these days would it ?
this post is part of a series of 'for dummies' for the first click Here
Nice post H, hope you had a nice hiatus.
yea i did thanks :o) i also had the chance to do some extensive research whilst i was away the results of which i hope to post in the next few days and it is a subject that is right up your street :o)
Terrorism for dummies
if you are an islamic extremist/terrorist then you are a bad guy
unless you are fighting saddam or someone else we dont like then you are a freedom fighter and therefore a good guy
except for many years saddam himself was the good guy , so that would make you the bad guy again
but if you were fighting the old USSR then you were definitely the good guy and the communists and the warlords that fought along side them were the bad guys
until the fall of comnunism at which point the warlords became regional leaders and you were therefore bad again which is the situation in afghanstan now , or it at least was last time we looked
and in chechnya where you are definitely bad because you torture kidnap and kill
unlike the russian army who also torture kidnap and kill but they are good , because they are now our friends....well at least they were until they refused to back our war on saddam at which point they became... well at present nobody really knows
simple isn't it .... now who are the good guys again ?
MMmm, that would make every members of the repugs fucktard team in the WH a collaborator, at least at one time in history. No lesson to give to the French here!
nice job _H_, what is funny to me, is that (asside from the USSR/Russia), all of the enemy/ally people have been... Muslims? Wait a minute... that would mean that we have been jerking around the...
So, when these guys turn around every chance they get, bite us in the rear... its really nothing new to them, because we have been doing it as well...
Pondering that thought for the day.
I don't really think it is so much about good and bad people as it is good and bad business opportunities.
Money makes the world go 'round!
of course phishy . but my post is very simple model to add humour . the true history of who is 'good' or 'bad' is much more complicated then this
however the extreme right try to view the world in this simplified way
(EG "muslim terrorist must be bad but Muslim freedom fighter must be good" they have NO IDEA that the two groups are the same people it is our fickle opinion that changes not theirs)
and so the post is a parody of the far right simplistic logic
and an example of how absurd our governments can be to the rest of us
My bad. Sometimes I'm too cynical to cut through the fat and get to the meat. My apologies