Sudan: a Third Front?

Hmm. I guess I could point to our actions in Middle America in the 80's as a great example.

How about our policy towards Israel in the u.N?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Quote:

Vetoes: 1972-1982
Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1

Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Subject Date Vote
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories
3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza[ 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/20/2002 12-1 (US) with 2 abstentions (Bulgaria and Cameroon)

Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three abstentions
(Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania

We have a real tendency to veto ANY resolution critical of Israel. I highlighted my favorite one.

How about our business practices and tax codes that encourage US companies to use the cheapest labor possible around the globe? That protects our intrests while hurting others.

I'll write more on this later tonight.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would add the "Trail of Tears", Slavery and Guatemala to the list.

0 Replies

Surely Guatemala but genocide and slavery within your own borders don't count as far as foxy's position.

0 Replies

Come on panzade,

The slaves came from somewhere and the Cherokee were (once) a sovreign nation.

What do you think Foxy?

0 Replies

No doubt about it, the US has been Israel strongest ally and consistent in its defense of Israel and we use our veto a lot. Which of the UN resolutions posted are favorable to the position held by the United States?

And again, the question was, how has protecting US interests via our votes in the UN hurt anybody else?

0 Replies

How many of those resolutions also sought to place equal blame on the palestinians?

0 Replies

Freeduck, re unilateralism in the previous adminisration, Bill Clinton rarely consulted with the UN before taking military action. The point was, in none of the quotes posted or in any of the several dozen others by Clinton and his administration and/or members of Congress, both Democrats and Republican, did anybody include, pending consent or cooperation with the UN. Requiring cooperation with the UN is a new political ploy since Bush was elected.

I picked Kerry quotes since they are the most timely, the most pertinent should he be elected in November, and they were the first ones I came to.

0 Replies

You're right about Clinton. George Sr was the last president who tried to work with the UN to further everyones interests.

0 Replies

OK Foxy,

I'll have to take your word on it. I thought we were talking about whether the threat from Iraq rose to the level where a country must take unilateral action to defend itself. I think I agreed with you that no nation should give up its right to do so.

0 Replies

And that's a valid debate FreeDuck, and one that will continue no doubt for decades. While I can criticize with the best of them, I am an old mother hen when it comes to unfair criticism and blatant hypocrisy. ManyAmericans, especially those who can't remember when winning a war was a good thing, wish we had not become involved in Iraq. The cost in blood and treasure has been horrendous. But most of us--I hope most of us--can also see that more good has been accomplished than harm. Whether it was the right decision to make given the information available at the time is worthy of discussion. But to condemn the men and women, on both sides of the aisle, for making the best decision they could at the time, is unfair and counterproductive to US interests.

0 Replies

Quote:

But most of us--I hope most of us--can also see that more good has been accomplished than harm.

I admire your faith. I guess I'm not one of the "most of us" as I don't see that more good than harm has come from our actions. But I guess that will be another one that will be debated for many years, I'm sure.

I still feel that the United Nations is a valuable body and should not be discounted for its inability to solve every last problem in the world. And that the US would do well to stop holding it in contempt and start playing nicely with others.

0 Replies

I think too, that Americans need to start thinking hard about what should be done about:
1) Iran for the very real threat it poses to its neighbors and US interests, and
2) Sudan for the reason that thousands upon thousands of innocent people are being starved and slaughtered there.

Dealing with either may require much more heavy investment in blood and treasure. It's a debate I am pretty sure we're going to have to have.

0 Replies

I think that Americans need to start thinking hard about ways to resolve conflict without 'blood and treasure'. After all, quantities of such are running low...

0 Replies

N Korea and Iran will not become peaceful through the expenditure of blood and treasure. We need to find a different way. This is a momentous occasion in the history of mankind. Never has one country been as powerful and capable of leading the world to a new secure peace.

0 Replies

Fox Wrote:

Quote:

But to condemn the men and women, on both sides of the aisle, for making the best decision they could at the time, is unfair and counterproductive to US interests.

There is a significant amount of evidence that shows the admin did not make the best decision they could have made at the time, or that the decision was even MADE at the time you thought it was. I will condemn those who seek to deceive the American people whether we are at war or not, whether it is counterproductive to our intrests or not.

As for the UN votes being harmful to people, vetoing a UN resolution that would have put UN observers in Palestine cannot possibly benefit anyone except for those who wish the atrocities committed by Israel to continue. After all, if Israel is truly without blame, they should have no problem with observers, right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thinking back, Saddam forced the hand of the US and the UN by invading Kuwait and aiming his armies at Saudi Arabia. Controlling a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves would have given Saddam effective control of a great deal of the world. That was unacceptable to US interests.

Since that time, Saddam had more than 10 years to comply with UN resolutions and rejoin the world and he fought them every inch of the way. After the invasion of Afghanistan necessitated by 9/11, Saddam was again informed he would comply with the UN resolutions or else. He ignored the demand.
We went to the UN and over a period of several months gave both Saddam an opportunity to comply and the UN to put some teeth into its own madates. Neither did.

So here we are. Is an unstable Iran with a nuke capable of taking out Israel or the Saudi oilfields or Ankara acceptable? At what point is it worth American blood and treasure to deal with it? Or do we just live with it?

At what point is it worth American blood and treasure to end the genocide of thousands of men, women, and children in Sudan? Or do we just live with it?

If these are hard questions for us as ordinary American citizens, imagine how difficult they are for our elected representatives and our president, whomever he may be.

0 Replies

Quote:

So here we are. Is an unstable Iran with a nuke capable of taking out Israel or the Saudi oilfields or Ankara acceptable? At what point is it worth American blood and treasure to deal with it? Or do we just live with it?

If I were Iran, I'd want a nuke. It is apparently the only deterrent to US invasion, ie North Korea.

How many countries should we invade to prevent them from having the same capabilities that we already have? Isn't there any other alternative?

0 Replies

Until what point is this a case of action - reaction (the possession of nukes)?

0 Replies

Quote:

Since that time, Saddam had more than 10 years to comply with UN resolutions and rejoin the world and he fought them every inch of the way. After the invasion of Afghanistan necessitated by 9/11, Saddam was again informed he would comply with the UN resolutions or else. He ignored the demand.
We went to the UN and over a period of several months gave both Saddam an opportunity to comply and the UN to put some teeth into its own madates. Neither did.

So here we are. Is an unstable Iran with a nuke capable of taking out Israel or the Saudi oilfields or Ankara acceptable? At what point is it worth American blood and treasure to deal with it? Or do we just live with it?

Saddam didn't force anything. The US is blindly stumbling into bigger and bigger messes by waving its manliness around without thinking.

Foxy, do you see the irony in the leap you are making?

Iraq and Iran were enemies for a long time. We supported Iraq until the early 1990s as a way to keep Iran off balance.

Now we have not only gotten rid of Irans biggest foe, but we put ourselves in a position where Iran can be pretty sure that they won't be facing an invasion any time soon.

You notice that both Iran and North Korea are publically advancing their nuclear programs right now? Do you think this is a coincidence? You think there is anything we can realistically do about it now?

0 Replies

There are always ironies ebrown. That doesn't change either the situation or the question.

0 Replies

Sudan: a Third Front?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know