[steppenwolf]

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

i dont like the un much but are they right at times?

[linskyjack]

Yeah, that should be a badge of honor for the Israelis! Bravo!

[Stoner]

Since there is no nation by the name of 'Palestine', how could there be UN resolutions against it?

[linskyjack]

By the way, the vast majority of those resolutions are non-binding----and therefore not enforceable. They are made by the General Assembly, that is controled by third world players who hate Israel. Come on Steppenwolf, you can do better then that!

[bassetman]

LJ If a country that we didn't like had that many resolutions against them, what do you think we would do?

[linskyjack]

Absolutely nothing---we couldn't----They aren't binding! That's why the UN is seen by many people as being a total farce. By the way, read some of these resolutions---they are ridiculous----and merely point out how the UN General Assembly is dominated by whackos. By the way, if their wasn't a Security Council, I would suggest that the US and any other western nation pull out of the UN. .

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Absolutely nothing---we couldn't----They aren't binding! That's why the UN is seen by many people as being a total farce. By the way, read some of these resolutions---they are ridiculous----and merely point out how the UN General Assembly is dominated by whackos. By the way, if their wasn't a Security Council, I would suggest that the US and any other western nation pull out of the UN. .

Did Bush have a binding resolution to invade Iraq?

I don't think so.

[linskyjack]

No, but Bush played a sneaky little game vis a vis "UN Resolutions" He used Iraq's disregard of several as part of his reason for the invasion. By the way, most of them were binding resolutions. I'm telling you, the UN is pretty much useless. I guess it helps the economy of New York, and that isn't a bad thing.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

No, but Bush played a sneaky little game vis a vis "UN Resolutions" He used Iraq's disregard of several as part of his reason for the invasion. By the way, most of them were binding resolutions. I'm telling you, the UN is pretty much useless. I guess it helps the economy of New York, and that isn't a bad thing.

Well that is part of the point I was alluding to, is that the US tends to use UN resolutions selectively.

[Littlefield]

Powell thought France was going to vote with us and they stabbed him in the back .I agree the UN is useless.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Since there is no nation by the name of 'Palestine', how could there be UN resolutions against it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ions+palestine

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Since there is no nation by the name of 'Palestine', how could there be UN resolutions against it?

So simple yet brilliant!!

Should be the post of the day!!!!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by wacorsaut

So simple yet brilliant!!

Should be the post of the day!!!!

So the UN can't have a resolution against terrorism?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by bassetman

So the UN can't have a resolution against terrorism?

well lets see it is called the United Nations isn't it? although that is an oxymoron

Anyway >> How do you have a resolution against an entity??

[linskyjack]

Most of the resolutions that the GA has come up with don't mention a Palestenian entity, all though the PLO has had observer status at the UN for years. They are a series of attacks on Israel because any mention of terroristic acts by the Palestenians and their proxies are pretty much ignored.