Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Canada votes against UN motion calling on Israel to open up nuclear program to inspection


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

#31 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:29 PM

You mean the "aboriginal" people who migrated here from Siberia and drove the herds of "deer and antelope" at play, away? .. :rolleyes:


Not really sure what to make of this. What happened to the aboriginal people in Canada was a tragedy.
  • 0

#32 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

So you want to include Israel with North Korea and Iran? .. rogue nations? .. part of the "Axis Of Evil"? .. so be it then .. it is official .. Israel is a rogue nation, thus all its acts are deemed to be "terrorist acts" .. then again, whats new? .. :picard:


very clever.
  • 0

#33 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,722 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

Welcome to HarperlandTM - one of the world's great banana republics, where ~70-80% have no voice.

If we ever see another election, I hope we can put an end to this madness. This is embarrassing.


That's funny, because 60% of the nation decided they didn't want a voice. The remaining did, and thanks to the the FPTP system, a Conservative majority was elected on May 2, 2011.

When you say 70-80% people have no voice, they voluntarily gave that up.


You want a leftist/centre-left government? When were the times that got 50% of the popular vote? Otherwise, you'll have to admit that every other government was illegitimately voted, as so many leftards say.
  • 0

#34 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

Not really sure what to make of this. What happened to the aboriginal people in Canada was a tragedy.


I think he may have been trying to "make a funny".

It is odd though that so many North Americans are completely anti-israeli while supporting their own Governments in Canada and the United states, considering how the Jews have a much better claim to the land of Israel than any Caucasians do to land in North America.
  • 2

#35 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,722 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:36 PM

The point is that it's only news worthy on CDC if it has to do with Israel.


Only when leftists think it's a bad thing. Of course, when leftist idols and gods like Justin Trudeau eff up in the media, that's when it's "taken out of context" or "blown out of proportion" or "all works of the evil neocons"

You can't every satisfy the left; that's because they themselves don't know how.
  • 0

#36 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:37 PM

I think he may have been trying to "make a funny".

It is odd though that so many North Americans are completely anti-israeli while supporting their own Governments in Canada and the United states, considering how the Jews have a much better claim to the land of Israel than any Caucasians do to land in North America.


Not to mention, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by independent Arab nations of much larger size, and the arab populations have substantially and consistently increased in size since Israel was founded. Meanwhile, there isn't a single aboriginal country in North America, and we totally decimated their populations.......but apparently Israel is the "only" country in the world that displaces people, and random Canadians on the internet clearly have the moral authority.
  • 1

#37 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:49 PM

Not really sure what to make of this. What happened to the aboriginal people in Canada was a tragedy.


Yes it was, and in some ways, still is .. oppression of "native" peoples has been ongoing since time immemorial .. sadly, it shall continue for some time to come ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#38 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:50 PM

Its widely......widely known that Israel HAS nuclear weapons. There nuke program began somewhere in the 50's. JFK knew about them and vehemently opposed Israel having them. The weapons were produced using the Dimona reactor.

The US DIA admits Israel's nukes at anywhere from 60-80, although most gov't assume they have more than that... They have Intercontinental launch capability. The Jericho 3 Missile has a 5000km radius.


Then again this is the same CIA that reported that Iraq had the WMDs. The USA and Israel might have very good reasons to have the Arab nations believe that Israel had a lot of nuclear weapons, even if it wasn't true, for entirely the opposite reasons as Iraq. Though of course I agree: they almost certainly do have them.

And isn't it interesting: The Arabs last full-scale assault on Israel was in 1973...the CIA reported Israel has nuclear capability in 1974. As I said before...maybe not a coincidence.




Bahaahah, yeah literal david vs goliath. The UN isn't even asking Israel to disarm there nuclear weapons, simply to at least acknowledge their existence..


Even if they did disarm them (which they wont), Israel military technology (thanks to the taxpayers of the USA) is on par with the top militaries of the world.

Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and any other Arab ally has ZERO chance of taking out Israel. ZERO.


Conventionally you're right: the Israelis should be able to repel any Arab attack at the moment. They way some people talk its almost as if the Israelis should apologize for defending their own existence and for the incompetence of their many enemies. On the contrary: the founding and prospering of Israel is one of the most amazing rags-to-riches stories in history.

Of couse the nuclear capability of a country like Iran would change a lot: one strike in Tel Aviv would basically destroy the country. Hopefully if Iran acquired nuclear capability they would not use it...but how could or should the Israelis respond to an ultimatum like "all Jews must leave the country of Israel or a nuclear bomb will be detonated in Tel Aviv". That's a tough one indeed!
  • 1

#39 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

I think he may have been trying to "make a funny".

It is odd though that so many North Americans are completely anti-israeli while supporting their own Governments in Canada and the United states, considering how the Jews have a much better claim to the land of Israel than any Caucasians do to land in North America.


I beg to differ .. I am of Viking stock, who visited and settled parts of North America in the 11th Century .. back when the "aboriginals" were hunter-gathering for the most part .. and I am not anti-Israeli .. I am anti-oppression .. that's all ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#40 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:01 PM

Only one country has ever "exercised" the nuclear option .. if there were to be a second "exercising" of such option, dollars-to donuts it will be the Israelis .. I hope they are downwind of the damn thing if they use it ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#41 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:09 PM

I beg to differ .. I am of Viking stock, who visited and settled parts of North America in the 11th Century .. back when the "aboriginals" were hunter-gathering for the most part .. and I am not anti-Israeli .. I am anti-oppression .. that's all ..


No vikings survived in North America from that brief colonization attempt, so your bloodline claim from approximately 1000 years ago is bogus. Compare that to the Jews in Israel, who have had a continuous presence in the region for over 3000 years, including the only periods of that 3000 years when the area was locally governed instead of by some foreign power.
  • 0

#42 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:13 PM

Only one country has ever "exercised" the nuclear option .. if there were to be a second "exercising" of such option, dollars-to donuts it will be the Israelis .. I hope they are downwind of the damn thing if they use it ..


Probably not actually: despite being the most precariously situated country in the world, and the most attacked country in the world (given it's relatively brief existence) Israel has always looked to make peace with its neighbours, including several times returning land (won primarily in defensive wars) in exchange for peace. Very few countries in history have ever returned land won in defensive wars, so your characterization of Israel as a war-hungry nation appears to be bogus.
  • 1

#43 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:56 PM

The point is that it's only news worthy on CDC if it has to do with Israel. And Israel has been attacked more than North Korea and Iran COMBINED. In fact is there even a country in the world who has been attacked more and by as many countries than Israel has? But yeah if 5 nations attack one there must be a reason for it. Even if its nations like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria and Libya ect. If such a 'responsible' group of nations attack Israel it must be justified.... Just kind of like a UN vote...Lol

The point is that it's only news worthy on CDC if it has to do with Israel. And Israel has been attacked more than North Korea and Iran COMBINED. In fact is there even a country in the world who has been attacked more and by as many countries than Israel has? But yeah if 5 nations attack one there must be a reason for it. Even if its nations like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria and Libya ect. If such a 'responsible' group of nations attack Israel it must be justified.... Just kind of like a UN vote...Lol


Well, there must be a reason why Israel is getting attacked. You say they are the most attacked country in the world. So they must've done something to get attacked by multiple countries. This isn't some random thing.
  • 0

Posted Image


#44 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

Why is it allowed in the first place? Who allowed it? Ahhh the great UN. How about start blaming the body that allowed the so called ilegal state in the first place. But judging from this thread many people support the UN now. So the decision to create Israel must have been a good one. Lol.


If the UN created it, then the UN can destroy it. Maybe they are just trying to correct their mistakes?
  • 0

Posted Image


#45 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:08 PM

Probably not actually: despite being the most precariously situated country in the world, and the most attacked country in the world (given it's relatively brief existence) Israel has always looked to make peace with its neighbours, including several times returning land (won primarily in defensive wars) in exchange for peace. Very few countries in history have ever returned land won in defensive wars, so your characterization of Israel as a war-hungry nation appears to be bogus.


You must be a professional conjurer .. where did I ever characterize Israel as "war-hungry" .. you need to switch your brand of tea, laddie, for the leaves just ain't working for you ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#46 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:08 PM

Then again this is the same CIA that reported that Iraq had the WMDs. The USA and Israel might have very good reasons to have the Arab nations believe that Israel had a lot of nuclear weapons, even if it wasn't true, for entirely the opposite reasons as Iraq. Though of course I agree: they almost certainly do have them.

And isn't it interesting: The Arabs last full-scale assault on Israel was in 1973...the CIA reported Israel has nuclear capability in 1974. As I said before...maybe not a coincidence.






Conventionally you're right: the Israelis should be able to repel any Arab attack at the moment. They way some people talk its almost as if the Israelis should apologize for defending their own existence and for the incompetence of their many enemies. On the contrary: the founding and prospering of Israel is one of the most amazing rags-to-riches stories in history.

Of couse the nuclear capability of a country like Iran would change a lot: one strike in Tel Aviv would basically destroy the country. Hopefully if Iran acquired nuclear capability they would not use it...but how could or should the Israelis respond to an ultimatum like "all Jews must leave the country of Israel or a nuclear bomb will be detonated in Tel Aviv". That's a tough one indeed!


So Iran shouldn't have Nuclear capabilities because of assumptions or predictions that they will use nuclear weapons on Israel yet Israel shouldn't have nuclear inspection because we can assume they would never use it. I love double standards. They should either inspect all countries that have nuclear capabilities, nuclear weapons etc. regularly or don't inspect any country that might or might not have nuclear weapons/nuclear capable. Everyone just assumes that Iran will bomb Israel to kingdom come if they acquired the ability to make nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons and they haven't done crap with it.
  • 0

Posted Image


#47 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:09 PM

If the UN created it, then the UN can destroy it. Maybe they are just trying to correct their mistakes?


Yeah because creating a nation and then simply destroying it is such an easy thing to do. The UN is useless. Can't even stop genocide. It's only usefulness is basic communications between nations. Don't blame Israel for wanting to exist and being allowed to, blame the UN. That's what I'm saying.

Edited by Special Ed, 05 December 2012 - 09:10 PM.

  • 1

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#48 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:13 PM

Only one country has ever "exercised" the nuclear option .. if there were to be a second "exercising" of such option, dollars-to donuts it will be the Israelis .. I hope they are downwind of the damn thing if they use it ..


Well, maybe we could assume that they want to use their nuclear weapons against middle east countries and don't want any of it coming back to strike their country.
  • 0

Posted Image


#49 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,878 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

Posted Image
  • 3

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#50 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

Posted Image

Oh Israel, Our home and native land

Posted Image

Edited by Pouria, 05 December 2012 - 09:38 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#51 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

If the UN created it, then the UN can destroy it. Maybe they are just trying to correct their mistakes?


The UN cannot create a state. States create themselves. The UN suggested borders for Israel and the Arab world. The Arab world rejected those borders, and they lost more land in the process.
  • 0

#52 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

Well, there must be a reason why Israel is getting attacked. You say they are the most attacked country in the world. So they must've done something to get attacked by multiple countries. This isn't some random thing.


Or maybe Arab countries have systematically attacked and killed all of their minority groups and neighbours. There's war on every border of the arab and muslim world. Not a coincidence.War in Kashmir.Armenian Genocide.Assyrian Genocide.Darfur Genocide.South Sudan Genocide.Kurdish Genocide.Millions dead in wars between Iran and Iraq.Lebanon has been ravished by war between muslims and Christians.200,000 dead in civil war in Yemen.Syrian civil war: 40,000 and counting.Black September: Jordan kills 20,000 Palestinians (more than Israel has killed in it's entire history).War in the Western Sahara.The list just goes on and on. Almost as if there is some kind of common thread here that does not include Israel or Jews.
  • 2

#53 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,722 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

Jews, guns, oil, business - anything the left won't whine about?
  • 0

#54 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:19 PM

Jews, guns, oil, business - anything the left won't whine about?


Common sense?
  • 1

Posted Image


#55 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:27 PM

Jews, guns, oil, business - anything the left won't whine about?


Death penalty .. most likely won't ever effect me and mine .. but .. I want it available as an option .. :mellow:
  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#56 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

You must be a professional conjurer .. where did I ever characterize Israel as "war-hungry" .. you need to switch your brand of tea, laddie, for the leaves just ain't working for you ..


You never stated it directly, but it's a logical extension. I think everyone would agree that starting a nuclear war is a much bigger step than simply starting a conventional war. If you don't believe Israel is war hungry (that they want to start a war or wars) than it would be logical to assume that they certainly don't want to start a nuclear war.
  • 0

#57 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:12 AM

So Iran shouldn't have Nuclear capabilities because of assumptions or predictions that they will use nuclear weapons on Israel yet Israel shouldn't have nuclear inspection because we can assume they would never use it. I love double standards. They should either inspect all countries that have nuclear capabilities, nuclear weapons etc. regularly or don't inspect any country that might or might not have nuclear weapons/nuclear capable. Everyone just assumes that Iran will bomb Israel to kingdom come if they acquired the ability to make nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons and they haven't done crap with it.


I would approve of of inspections on every country possessing or suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. However I see the Israeli perspective. This is not some "game" with the impartial referee being the U.N. This article describes the U.N. in regards to Israel.

Whorehouse
ALONG THE EAST RIVER

.

Once again Arab propagandists have proved themselves to be master manipulators. Iraqi Foreign Minister, Taraq Aziz, protested that sanctions were imposed upon Iraq for non-compliance yet no sanctions were ever imposed upon Israel for its non-compliance to previous U.N. resolutions. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara added his objection that Iraq was expected to comply with U.N. resolutions but that Israel held itself above the law. Several days later, the Arab League representative to the United Nations added his indignity that Israel, but not Iraq, can ignore U.N. Resolutions and get away with it. And before you could say "Zionist Pig," every Leftist anti-war protestor from Berkeley to Boston was in an uproar!
To understand fully the fallacious comparison between Iraqi and Israeli "non-compliances" with "U.N. Resolutions," one must understand the different legal weights that "U.N. Resolutions" carry. First of all, there is a tangible distinction between (1) General Assembly "resolutions" and (2) Security Council "resolutions." In other words, not all UN "resolutions" are created equal!

Posted Image


(1) General Assembly resolutions have political (perhaps even moral, to some) authority... but they are all non-binding. Most of those aimed at Israel are also patently ridiculous. For example:
  • General Assembly Resolution 250 "calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem."
  • General Assembly Resolution 251 "deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250."
  • General Assembly Resolution 252 "declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as her capital"
  • General Assembly Resolution 271 "condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
  • General Assembly Resolution 476 "reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are null and void"
  • General Assembly Resolution 673 "deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations"
When one considers that the majority of U.N. member states are Arab nations (22) or Islamic nations (52) or dictatorial, anti-democratic nations or nations in desperate need of Arab oil or nations desperate for business investment opportunities within Arab countries or countries fearful of discontent among their growing Arab/Muslim populations (namely ALL of Europe!), it's no wonder why so many anti-Israel General Assembly resolutions get introduced AND passed! In fact, of over 700 General Assembly resolutions passed since the UN's 1945 establishment, nearly 450 condemn Israel. None have been passed against any Arab country nor any Arab terrorist organizations! In other words, out of 190 nations in the United Nations, over sixty percent of all General Assembly resolutions condemned just ONE member, Israel! If the General Assembly proposed a resolution deploring Israel for breathing too much Middle Eastern air, no doubt it too would pass! So when the large bloc of anti-Israel fascist, anti-democratic, anti-Western, Arab and Islamic Neo-Nazi nations tell Israel to comply with these transparently biased AND non-binding resolutions, Israel simply tells them to "shove it."

Posted Image


(2) The Security Council is the United Nations' most powerful body. It has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Five powerful countries sit as "permanent members" along with ten other member states, elected for two-year terms. It has the authority to dispatch military operations, imposes economic sanctions, mandates arms inspections, deploys human rights and election monitors and more. This, however, is not to say that the Security Council is all that much better than its General Assembly counterpart when it comes to issue related to the Arab/"Palestinian"-Israeli dispute. In its entire existence, the Security Council has passed only 131 resolutions. Of those, 88 criticized or opposed Israel. Not one deplored or even contained a breath of criticism against Arab countries in general or those in particular which initiated wars or terrorism against Israel.
Not all Security Council resolutions are created equal. The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Such is the case, for instance, of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, adopted in 1967 and 1973 respectively, which call for an Israeli withdrawal from disputed territories (not from ALL disputed territories!) in the framework of a negotiated comprehensive peace settlement.
In contrast to those adopted under Chapter Six, resolutions adopted under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, entitled ''Action With Respect to Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression,'' can be enforced by third parties. Moreover, the United Nations can authorize under Article 42 of its Charter Seven the use of military force if a Chapter Seven resolution is violated. Chapter Seven violations are of a much more serious nature in that they give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression." They were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. However, NONE of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. Therefore that claim of equivalency between Iraqi and Israeli failure to abide by U.N. resolutions falls flat on its head. Iraq is thumbing its nose at a legal and binding Security Council Resolution.

FROM HOPE TO WHOREDOM...


By the 1970s, UN's original 55 membership had swollen to more than 150. Many of these member nations were newly created from lands which never experienced anything remotely resembling freedom or democratization. In reality, these member states were nothing more than corrupt third world dictatorships... which pretty much describes all the Arab League member states and most, if not all, the Islamic states! What many of these member states lacked in humanity and civilization, they more than made up for it with their oil wealth blackmail power. This combination made them blackmailers, aPosted Image menace to civilization, anti-Western Jihadists and Jew-haters to boot!
Just when we all thought the UN couldn't sink its credibility any lower, the majority of its members in January 1972 elected for a five year term as Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, a former Austrian Nazi! This is all the more amazing since the UN was created by those who fought the Nazis during WWII and one of the first items on its agenda in 1945 was what to do with all the Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust! Not surprisingly, Herr Waldheim showed no particular compassion for the Jews of Israel either.

U.N. GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO PALESTINIAN TERRORISM...


On Nov. 13, 1974 the UN changed forever when the "new" UN invited "Mr. Terrorism" (and the most efficient murderer of Jews since Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin), PLO leader Yasser Arafat, to mount the podium and address the Posted Imagemembers of the General Assembly. Prior to this distinctive honor, Arafat's only claim to fame was his passion for Israel's annihilation. Following his historic address (all with pistol in holster), the UN granted the PLO observer status and formally supports the Palestinians' right to "sovereignty and national independence." Perhaps they did this as a show of gratitude for his not shooting up the joint! In 1975, the General Assembly whores spread their legs a bit wider when they awarded permanent representative status to the PLO, which opened an office in midtown Manhattan. Later that year, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the General Assembly allowed "full penetration" by approving Resolution 3379 which slandered Zionism by branding it a" form of racism."
This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

READY FOR THE GLUE FACTORY?


Posted Image


There's an old song called, "The Old Gray Mare... [She Ain't What She Used To Be]." Well, the U.N. ain't what it used to be either! In its beginnings back in the '40s and 50s, there was a great deal of high hope for this organization and there were surely a number of distinguished people associated with its birth. But, since the 1970s, that nasty contaminant called "Palestinian Nationalism" came on the scene and literally infected each and every one of the UN's agencies. It's been all downhill ever since. An organization so nobly conceived has turned into a veritable cesspool, a den of anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionism... in short, an international whorehouse!


As can be seen, the United Nations is very much a player for the Arab side. As long as the US can veto resolutions, why not do it? Russia or China does the same for regimes much, much more oppressive than Israel.

As for the nuclear issue: I think most people would agree that Iran or one of the Arab countries would be much more likely to deploy a nuclear weapon against Israel if they possessed one than North Korea would against South Korea. Hate of Israel is very intense for a lot people in the middle east.

Actually if Iran did acquire nukes, I would envision one being smuggled to Palestinian freedom fighters or or to some other independent muslim group. It could then be smuggled into Israel, perhaps by ship into one of Israel's ports for detonation. This would allow Iran to avoid direct blame and therefore avoid retaliation while dealing a fatal blow to jewry in Israel.
  • 1

#58 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,722 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:26 AM

Common sense?


The left possess none.
  • 0

#59 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

The left possess none.


No, I mean Common sense...as in your user name...as in you
  • 0

Posted Image


#60 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

I would approve of of inspections on every country possessing or suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. However I see the Israeli perspective. This is not some "game" with the impartial referee being the U.N. This article describes the U.N. in regards to Israel.



As can be seen, the United Nations is very much a player for the Arab side. As long as the US can veto resolutions, why not do it? Russia or China does the same for regimes much, much more oppressive than Israel.

As for the nuclear issue: I think most people would agree that Iran or one of the Arab countries would be much more likely to deploy a nuclear weapon against Israel if they possessed one than North Korea would against South Korea. Hate of Israel is very intense for a lot people in the middle east.

Actually if Iran did acquire nukes, I would envision one being smuggled to Palestinian freedom fighters or or to some other independent muslim group. It could then be smuggled into Israel, perhaps by ship into one of Israel's ports for detonation. This would allow Iran to avoid direct blame and therefore avoid retaliation while dealing a fatal blow to jewry in Israel.


And how would you know this??
  • 0

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.