Under the Emergency Powers Act (1939) as amended by the Defence Act(1978), you are hereby notified that you are required to place yourself on standby for possible compulsory military service in the American Conflict. You may shortly be ordered to depart for the Middle East where you will join either the 3rd Battalion The Queen's Own Suicidal Conscripts or the 2nd Foot and Mouth. The regulars are too busy driving Green Goddesses to be there themselves. Due to the recent rundown of the Navy and the refusal of P&O to lend us
any of their liners, because of the deplorable state in which they were returned after the Falklands adventure, it will be necessary for you to make your own way to the combat zone.

H.M. Government have been able to negotiate a 20% iscount on one way trips with Virgin Airlines and you are strongly urged to take advantage of this offer (Ryan Air also do a nice little £9.99 trip). Because of cutbacks in Government expenditure in recent years it will be necessary for you to
provide yourself with the following equipment as soon as possible:
* Combat Jacket
* Trousers(preferably khaki - but please no denim)
* Tin helmet
* Boots (or a pair of sturdy trainers)
* Gas mask
* Map of the combat zone (the Ordinance Survey 1:2800 Outdoor Leisure Map of Iraq will do)
* Rifle
* Ammunition (preferably to suit previous item)
* Suntan oil

If you are in a position to afford it, we would like you to buy a
tank (Vickers Defence of Banbury are currently offering all new
conscripts a 0% finance deal on all X registration Chieftains, but hurry, as offer is only available whilst stocks last).
We would like to reassure you that in the unlikely event of anything going wrong, you will receive a free burial in the graveyard of your choice, and your next of kin will be entitled to the new War Widows pension of £1.75 per calendar month, index-linked but subject to means testing, and fully repayable should our side eventually lose. There may be little time for formal military training before your departure and so we advise that you hire videos of the following films and try and pick up a few tips as you watch:
* The Guns of Navarron
* Kelly's Heroes
* A Bridge to Far
* The Longest Day
* Apocalypse Now
* The Dirty Dozen
* Hamburger Hill
* Full Metal Jacket
* Missing In Action

We do not recommend that you watch Khartoum. To mentally prepare yourself for your mission try reading the works of
Wilfred Owen or Rupert Brookes. This should give you some idea of what may be involved.

Yours faithfully,

G Hoon, Ministry of Defence.

A Bush - Blair Production
Sponsored by Coca-Cola, The Official Drink of World War III

This is excellent - I can't believe no-one replied before!

Did you make it up yourself? Or was it one of those email things?

Geoff

Ha bloody Ha! :D

No - i found it on one of the forums I visit.

I largely take part in pagan/witchy forums, I am finding large numbers of people 'offended' by it. Large group postings about the anti war marches in February *puke*

Am I the only person in the whole world who just cannot see why they are all whinging.

In war people die - sad fact - helps with over population - there ya go. People have gone to war over less.

Moon Maiden

The Anti War campaigners, have the right to demonstrate, due to the fact that our ancestors fought two world wars etc !
Can they not see the logic, yes people die in wars, always have, always will, that is why the act of war is not taken lightly !
Problem with the Anti War 'brigade', is they would not have wanted Hitler sorting out, in fact Tony Benn would probably have gone for a chat with him !

Yeah - point taken - they do have a right to campaign against the war.

Heaven help us if conscription is brought in - all those folk as concientious objectors. It's a flippin insult to those that died and suffered in the wars gone by - and the thousands still buried under Sheffield

Moon Maiden

Forgot to log in again that Guest was me again !

Totally Agree 100% the Anti War mob are an insult to those who fought for their freedom !

try reading some war poetry (Owen etc) and then argue that an anti-war protest is an insult to those who died.

Wilfred Owen:

"...We laughed, knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars,
When each proud fighter brags:
He wars on Death, for Life,
Not men for flags".

I am pretty certain that he wouldn't have been insulted that thousands (millions?) of people are going to London this weekend to argue that bombing is not the solution. He would have been proud. Instead of arguing that war is inevitable or unavoidable I think that we should be trying to be the 'better men' that he writes about - for the sake of those, like Owen, who died or lost loved ones during war.

Instead of arguing that war is inevitable or unavoidable I think that we should be trying to be the 'better men' that he writes about - for the sake of those, like Owen, who died or lost loved ones during war.


You can talk about being the better man all you like when we have a country full of muslim fanatics wishing to sell your daughters because it will become the first religion of the UK.
Or better still - you stand up for your rights - as you take your right to speak out against war now - but the taliban is ruling now so you and your family and all associated heretics are murdered.

Like me - who lost relatives during WWI & II. Had family in the Falkslands and who did frequent tours of Ireland, not to mention my uncle who served during the gulf war and who will put his arse back on the line again in this war flying over enemy territory.

Do not preach to me about lost soldiers - I am the child of a long line of soldiers, sailors and Air Force personel and I can love & light it as good as the next person - I just happen to live in this reality and not the one in your head.

Why don't you just spit in the face of every serviceman and woman in the British Isles and have done with it - they didn't join up to play mickey mouse and have tea parties - they joined to protect this country and us in peacetime and in war. The vast majority of them will be fully trained and prepared for war - unlike some recruits in the Falklands and WW1 & 2.

War is not pretty is not nice but if it means I don't have to walk round speaking in a foreign language and i am as free as I am now to practise the religion I wish to - then lets kick their arses please.

You can sign your petitions and make your marches it is your right. But you are not going to convince me that there is a peaceful solution to a madman and religious fantatics.

Moon Maiden

Life is not about poetry
Poetry is about life

So Guest, what is the alternative solution offered by our Anti War demonstrators ?????
I haven't heard one yet !

So Guest, what is the alternative solution offered by our Anti War demonstrators ?????
I haven't heard one yet !

What exactly do you perceive as "the problem"?
Please supply evidence/facts to support your proposition.

regards
Nomme

I, too, have family who serve in the armed forces (including two uncles and a cousin). I very much respect the fact that they risk their lives and I certainly do not think that I am spitting in their faces by arguing that we should not go to war and they should not have to risk their lives.

I used to think that anti-war protesters were missing something vital: that sometimes you do have to fight (physically) to defend yourself. It's difficult because I still believe that on a basic level this may still be true. However, I have increasingly come to understand that most of the time these situations can be avoided and that it is in fact those who argue for war who frequently fail to see the wider picture.

Did you know that America armed and trained Bin Laden (a ruthless terrorist even then) during the 80s so he would fight against Russia? Britain sold arms to Iraq so they would fight Iran. They also armed Iran in return. The West is not an innocent victim of a worldwide Moslem plot - they are powerful and active and have been creating problems in the world for years.

No Iraqis were involved in Sep 11. Saudi Arabians were - shall we bomb them? Iraq isn't going to attack us because if it did, we'd nuke it. Saddam knows this. We are trying to humiliate a country in a way that we would never expect to be humiliated ourselves. All the time, its people suffer and starve and now are about to be bombed. How can this be a solution?

Sorry for the long message, but these are points that need explanation and discussion.

nommedenet wrote:
What exactly do you perceive as "the problem"?
Please supply evidence/facts to support your proposition

War on Iraq ?

The Problem :
Saddam Hussein

Evidence/Facts :
Information supplied by US and UK governments, NATO etc..

My postings on here focus on the understanding (or lack of), with the Anti War demonstrators. I may be being unfair and generalising, but I can just picture them now:

Anti US/Bush/UK/Blair slogans etc..
Socialist Workers ?????????
Pacifists and 'do gooders'
Left Wing MPs and a sprinkling of so called celebs...

I'm sorry but they just make me sick !!

You seriously think that the UK would waste Nuclear bombs on Hussain when the special forces could take him out?

I am seriously supprised at that comment. And that is not taking into account the fact that if either the UK or the US launched nuclear attacks then the leaders of the other countries against this war would have no choice but to launch against us.

Saddam knows this - he isn't afraid of being nuked.

I agree that Bush is most likely using this thing with Iraq and the fact we should have finished him off the first time round to get into a revenge war with whoever it was took out the towers. But I want Saddam out of the picture.

At this precise moment in time (and I shudder saying this) we need 'ole Thatcher back - because our leaders haven't got the ****** to sort this situation out in a peaceful way. She managed it with Gadafi did she not?

My memory may be off as I was in junior school at the time - but I remember alot of worry about war with Gadafi - and the ole battleaxe never did it and put him back in his place.

So if you believe that situation can be sorted out in other ways than combat (which is a view I share too) Give me one for this situation.

Which political figure is going to have enough respect, balls and charisma to convince these religious fanatics and madmen to stand down?

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by "Michael_W"


War on Iraq ?

The Problem :
Saddam Hussein


So are you saying war is justifiable in order to take out just 1 man?
Um.. like they tried to with Bin Laden and Castro?

Originally posted by "Michael_W"


Evidence/Facts :
Information supplied by US and UK governments, NATO etc..


Oh like that 12 year old cut 'n paste student report - yeah right. Could you quote a few URLs that detail this 'information'?

Originally posted by "Michael_W"


My postings on here focus on the understanding (or lack of), with the Anti War demonstrators. I may be being unfair and generalising, but I can just picture them now:

Anti US/Bush/UK/Blair slogans etc..
Socialist Workers ?????????
Pacifists and 'do gooders'
Left Wing MPs and a sprinkling of so called celebs...

I'm sorry but they just make me sick !!

Fair enough. It's just that to me if you are so anti -"anti-war" you must be pro war. I'm just interested in your views as to why you think war is justifiable.
It's just that I've not seen or heard any decent argument to justify war on Iraq - just a lot of spin doctoring.

So are you saying war is justifiable in order to take out just 1 man?
Um.. like they tried to with Bin Laden and Castro?


And Hitler you moron - or have you forgot just what ONE man can accomplish???

Apart from which - as I understand our special forces - that being the United Kingdom - were stopped from going for Bin Laden. The yanks couldn't organise a p*** up in a brewery.

Moon Maiden

Moon Maiden wrote:

And Hitler you moron - or have you forgot just what ONE man can accomplish???


Calm down. No need for name calling.
I'm quite aware of the second world war thank you. As I recall it, it started with Germany attacking another country. I was merely pointing out that the spectacular failures in the past of going after just ONE man.
Now justify your argument for attacking Iraq.

Moon Maiden wrote:

Apart from which - as I understand our special forces - that being the United Kingdom - were stopped from going for Bin Laden. The yanks couldn't organise a p*** up in a brewery.
Moon Maiden

That's interesting - what was the reason given for that then?

Only a fool actually wants war, but surely the people who are currently handwringing and going on marches to protest can see the big picture.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who actively oppresses his own people and is a danger, not only to the middle east but to the world. I agree with the other posters who say he should have been taken out the first time, but it was the Anti-War brigade who kicked up such a fuss that stopped this occuring. So now 12 years down the line, Saddam is still making a mockery of the UN, see todays news for example, the weapons inspectors have found missiles which contravne UN resolutions! He needs taking out and need now.
Lets be honest though, it cannot and will not stop there. North Korea has started up a Nuclear program and has already stated they will fire first if neccessary. Al Qaeda seem to be gearing up to kill more civillians, in our owncountry, we have religious fanatics whose self declared purpose is to destroy us and our way of life. Do these marchers think that sitting round a campfire, holding hands and singing peace songs really think that it is going to change their views and life a nice, orderly peaceful life. Get real, if and when a major terrorist incident happens or should we do nothing about Hussain and Korea, they will have the blood of many thousands of innocent people on their collective hands. Ok, there may well be civillian deaths in a conflict with Iraq, something we should all fear and abhor, but the big difference is the enemys of democracy will actually try to kill civilians, whereas our stated aim is to take out their military and provide stability and peace for future generations.

Originally posted by "disillusioned"


whereas our stated aim is to take out their military and provide stability and peace for future generations.

that may be the "stated aim", but the opportunity to control the oil fields of the middle east will have a lot to do with US and Britain's actions.

Do you honestly believe that our government and the US government would be so stupid to take over the oil fields of Iraq, after the furore caused by those syaing that is the aim?
Personally I dont believe that for a second. It would cost them dear come election time. Both the UK and US govenment have stated that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq, therefore the oil fields will be returned to their rightful owners not the mad dictator we have now.
I truly hope this is the case. Oil is not worth more than human life, I agree with the stated aims and I trust them to carry it out with the minimum of civilian casualties. I cannot percieve this as a war for oil, a war to remove a dictator hell bent on destruction yes, maybe a way for the US to gain another ally in the middle east by providing a sympathetic gvernment to assit the war on terror possibly.
What I fail to understand is the people who believe Hussain should be mollified and allowed to remain in power. A reasonable arguement please!

nommedenet wrote:

Fair enough. It's just that to me if you are so anti -"anti-war" you must be pro war. I'm just interested in your views as to why you think war is justifiable.
It's just that I've not seen or heard any decent argument to justify war on Iraq - just a lot of spin doctoring.

Have I said I am anti -"anti-war" or that I am pro war ????
I have said the "Anti War demonstrators" make me sick !
I see a few postings on here that share my views on this matter so I will not repeat them. I trust the UK and US govts stance on the Iraq situation, and history suggests that miltary action by the UK/US/Allies has been needed and justified !
The UK and the US are not the evil powers that our "Anti War"/ "Muslim Fanatics" portray in their "Spin".
Go and have your demonstrations etc....your rights as a UK citizen allow you to do so.
Oh and here are a couple of links :
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/

Basically for those who have called me in challenge - my views are shared with Michael and Disillisioned. PLain and simple - they have both put wonderfully just how I feel about the whole thing.

As I have said before you are entitled to your protests and right to speak out - but I am now 100% of the conclusion that you cannot educate pork!

Moon Maiden

Can someone give me a good reason why we shouldn't remove Saddam from power?

The fear is that the war orphans of today are the terrorists of tommorrow, so getting rid of Sadam by was is bad. Of course this doesn't hold if the method of killing Saddam is deviod of civilian casualties. Im still struggling to decide wether to support the war myself.

Originally posted by "richard"

The fear is that the war orphans of today are the terrorists of tommorrow, so getting rid of Sadam by was is bad. Of course this doesn't hold if the method of killing Saddam is deviod of civilian casualties. Im still struggling to decide wether to support the war myself.

You're not the only one.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,895575,00.html

regards
Nomme

If I was Sadam I would not have let Tony Benn Within 1000 miles of me, History proves who ever he sides with loses example CND, miners, don`t think he has ever won one yet.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
You can talk about being the better man all you like when we have a country full of muslim fanatics wishing to sell your daughters because it will become the first religion of the UK.
Or better still - you stand up for your rights - as you take your right to speak out against war now - but the taliban is ruling now so you and your family and all associated heretics are murdered.

Like me - who lost relatives during WWI & II. Had family in the Falkslands and who did frequent tours of Ireland, not to mention my uncle who served during the gulf war and who will put his arse back on the line again in this war flying over enemy territory.

Do not preach to me about lost soldiers - I am the child of a long line of soldiers, sailors and Air Force personel and I can love & light it as good as the next person - I just happen to live in this reality and not the one in your head.

Why don't you just spit in the face of every serviceman and woman in the British Isles and have done with it - they didn't join up to play mickey mouse and have tea parties - they joined to protect this country and us in peacetime and in war. The vast majority of them will be fully trained and prepared for war - unlike some recruits in the Falklands and WW1 & 2.

War is not pretty is not nice but if it means I don't have to walk round speaking in a foreign language and i am as free as I am now to practise the religion I wish to - then lets kick their arses please.

You can sign your petitions and make your marches it is your right. But you are not going to convince me that there is a peaceful solution to a madman and religious fantatics.

Moon Maiden

Here Here!! The anti war demonstrators are the type of people that would sit back and allow the country to be taken over.
In effect they are mostly cowards.

I wish that they did have conscription....it builds character, alas the way things are going with cut backs, the forces will have to fight with slingshots and baseball bats.

Originally posted by Guest
Can someone give me a good reason why we shouldn't remove Saddam from power?

How about - because the stated reason for attack (i.e. weapons of mass destruction(TM) ready to go in 45 minutes) is false?

Originally posted by DerekH
Here Here!! The anti war demonstrators are the type of people that would sit back and allow the country to be taken over.


How did you work that out?

What makes someone who protests against their government joining an illegal invasion of a sovereign state (in contradiction of all known norms and laws of international behaviour), the same as someone who would do nothing to fight an invasion of their own sovereign state.

Where is the link, the corollary, the correlation?

I'd ask the nurse to let you have a crayon or something safe; at least then you could make notes.

Originally posted by evildrneil
How about - because the stated reason for attack (i.e. weapons of mass destruction(TM) ready to go in 45 minutes) is false?

How about because the man gassed his own people...Whilst I can now accept that the likely hood of them invading Brtiain by force was a no no - i cannot in all conscience accept that it was right to allow the people of Halabja to die at the hands of their own sovereign ruler.
Just as it wasn't right to allow the Jews and other peoples the Nazi's didn't like the look of to be gased in their millions during WWII.

Granted the government didn't have to lie to get the country to stand up and do help during WWII - but what the hades does that say about the rest of you now?
That our government has to lie and threatens our own lands with invasion or destruction to get people to care about their follow man?? Because such attrocities as carried out by Saddam were made public BEFORE 9/11 and this war - and where were your do gooder protesters then, fighting for the rights of civllians? Eh? Where were they?

This is a subject I have gone over many times from all angles with all faiths religions and creeds - and since the whole mess started not ONE of you has given me a reason not to remove saddam from power...still waiting...I won't hold me breath...

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
How about because the man gassed his own people...Whilst I can now accept that the likely hood of them invading Brtiain by force was a no no - i cannot in all conscience accept that it was right to allow the people of Halabja to die at the hands of their own sovereign ruler.
Just as it wasn't right to allow the Jews and other peoples the Nazi's didn't like the look of to be gased in their millions during WWII.

Who supplied him with the gas / chemicals and know how to use it? Oh yes it was the Wast wasn't it when they wanted a bulwark against Iraq. If were going to turn this into some moral crusade when are we going to liberate the lands taken by Israel and still held in contravention of numerous UN resolutions (http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html)? But no they are still the single largest recipient of US foreign aid - oh and by the way actually do have WMD. When are we going to speak out agains the US holding people without trial in Guantanamo Bay and using torture - oh sorry these are our allies 'forcefull persuasion techniques'. What about massacres and mass rapes in Sudan? Gennocide in Rwanda? In communicado detentions and torture in Saudi (indidently where our good friend Bin Laden comes from) - but no Saudi is too politically usefull so we can't do anything there.

No I'm not trying to claim Sadam is an angel is human form, but there are plent of regiemes out there at least as opressive as his but are hapilly ignored by the West - makes rather a mockery of any claimed moral reasons doesn't it?

[/b]This is a subject I have gone over many times from all angles with all faiths religions and creeds - and since the whole mess started not ONE of you has given me a reason not to remove saddam from power...still waiting...I won't hold me breath.[/B]

Because (as Phanerothyme pointed out) he was the leader of a sovereign state and invasion of the country was of very dubious legality and morality. Look at things from the point of view of someon living in the Middle East - the US and allies support a country which invades you and dispossess you, then if other countries don't play ball will happily invade them without UN backing under the thinist most obvious pretext, kill thousands of civilians and impose a government of their own choosing. Claiming this will stop Islamic Extremists is like claiming that kicking a wasps nest is a good way to avoid getting stung...

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
HBecause such attrocities as carried out by Saddam were made public BEFORE 9/11 and this war - and where were your do gooder protesters then, fighting for the rights of civllians? Eh? Where were they?
The people that highlighted this act at the time were groups like Amnesty and various socialist parties who you appear to despise. Our (US/UK) Governments said nothing because they a) supplied the raw materials for these atrocities b) considered it acceptable collateral damage in the war against Iran. The above mentioned groups pointed this out at the time. People like you obviously choose not to remember this

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
This is a subject I have gone over many times from all angles with all faiths religions and creeds - and since the whole mess started not ONE of you has given me a reason not to remove saddam from power...still waiting...I won't hold me breath...
Because we bombed a country back to the Dark Ages and killed more civilians in 12 months than Sadaam had in the previous 7 years. Because the justification was all lies. Because the real reason was the ideology of a few right wing Christian fundamentalists. Because we've ignored worst than Sadaam many times in the past 30 years. Because the moral justification is just as much tosh as WMD. proof that UK Governments lack any morality can be seen in the example of Douglas Hurd sending the SAS to train Pol Pots' Khmer Rouge..a group that murdered 6 million fellow countrymen,women,children. What was the glorious moral imperative for our Government and armed forces for this wonderful episode? Obviously not enough in the way of bones lying about in the Cambodian countryside? (Please don't say Blair's different to Thatcher, he's not, he's a war criminal)

And to put right something someone said earlier: Tony Benn was in the RAF in WW11, as I seem to remember

I remember both my Brother and my Dad getting a similar lettet to that back when teh first Gulf War was on.

in teh small print at the bottom it said "World War III - Sponsored by Mars, the official chocolate bar of the Allied Forces"

BWAHAHA! :lol:

I didn't know it at the time, but now it dawns on me that it was probably fake, cos it went on about watching John Wayne movies to get the "feel" of war and all that :loopy:

Originally posted by DerekH
Here Here!! The anti war demonstrators are the type of people that would sit back and allow the country to be taken over.
In effect they are mostly cowards.


So not like the heroic George Bush junior then? The same who was cowardly enough to go AWOL from the armed forces, but brave enough to send YOUR sons and daughters to die in the deserts of the Middle East.

Or is the dirty little secret you don't wish to discuss?

Originally posted by DerekH
Here Here!! The anti war demonstrators are the type of people that would sit back and allow the country to be taken over.
In effect they are mostly cowards.


Considering the number of times you see people use the expression Hear! Hear! on this forum, it still amazes me how many don't know how to spell it

Agreed mojo.

'Hear Hear'... an abbreviation of 'Hear him, Hear him', which is an abbreviation of 'Hear him. Hear this eloquant man.'(The last one is paraphrased - I can't remember the full quote).

It doesn't mean 'Me too - me over here'.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
How did you work that out?

What makes someone who protests against their government joining an illegal invasion of a sovereign state (in contradiction of all known norms and laws of international behaviour), the same as someone who would do nothing to fight an invasion of their own sovereign state.

Where is the link, the corollary, the correlation?

I'd ask the nurse to let you have a crayon or something safe; at least then you could make notes.

I agree that the attack on a sovereign state has so far been unjustified ..but the way that Saddam had already contavened many un resolutions made it impossible for anyone to believe that he did not have wmd..in his arsenal.

He did use WMD against the Kurds and was known to have the capability and the mentality to use these weapons again.

Here is a question that you should ponder over.

If Saddam were allowed to carry on, The resolutions that were implemented by the UN would have been undermined as nothing but words thus making the UN look like they have no power or influence.
Bearing in mind that this is a united Nation emphasis on united!.that was being ignored shows that Saddam was capable of doing whatever he wanted to.

I personally do not think that Saddam was at fault but His sons and cousins were the types that were callouse and manipulative.

Since Iraq invaded Kuwait with the subsequent gulf war that followed, Saddam and his forces fired scud missiles indiscriminatley in to Israel, not at strategic targets but the civillian population.
This in its self showed what this man is like,
with no regard to life or the destruction of civilians that realy had nothing to do with the situation at the time.

We have had the War....Will it be better? Who knows....The islamics/muslims have their own ideas!

They will be taking over the world one day unless some one does something about it.............And if they do....We won't mind because we will all be dead!

[i]


Because we bombed a country back to the Dark Ages and killed more civilians in 12 months than Sadaam had in the previous 7 years. [/B]
What utter Tripe........So far the death toll from the war is...11000 iraqis, 61 Brits.. So you are telling me that Saddam only killed lets say 10 000 Mugabe has done more than that.

If we are that bothered about terrorists and human rights and breaking of UN resolutions, why haven't we invaded Israel?

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."-


Source: Paul Findley, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the US/Israeli Relationship (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1993).

Originally posted by Snook
If we are that bothered about terrorists and human rights and breaking of UN resolutions, why haven't we invaded Israel?



I agree withh you 100%...Israel is the only middle east country with nuclear capability that tends to do what it want to!
Why we dont invade is a story for the polititians but from what I can see is that The US and UK look at Israel as a strategic standpoint.
There is no other logic for allowing them the concessions that they are getting!

Another thing here is....Are the UK or any other country entitled to intefere with the way another country is run?

This is open to a lot of views but If the UK is not directly affected or threatened by the actions of other countries, Why are our troops in places like the old yugoslavia etc?

Originally posted by DerekH
I agree withh you 100%...Israel is the only middle east country with nuclear capability that tends to do what it want to!
Why we dont invade is a story for the polititians but from what I can see is that The US and UK look at Israel as a strategic standpoint.
There is no other logic for allowing them the concessions that they are getting!

Maybe it's because they are almost totally funded by America, with $4 billion a year... that helps build an arsenal.

Originally posted by Snook
Maybe it's because they are almost totally funded by America, with $4 billion a year... that helps build an arsenal.

Good answer and correct but...What? Has Israel to offer the west?

No one or country supports a policy if it does not give a return...
And what would the return from Israel be?

Not to mention the fact that Israel was set up post WW2 as a homelan for the jews, largely by the US and UK, with no regard for the people living in the are. They can hardly now watch it fail so feel they have to support it pretty much whatever it does.

On a side note give all the crap the Jews have suffered over the years being the outsider, you would have thought it would have made them a bit more tollerent of other peopel wouldn't you? Or am I just being niave again?

non of those resolutions authorise the use of force, one against iraq did, that was the legal basis for the invasion.
Israel supports the west, that's a key difference between them and sadam.

Not to mention that the occupied territories were captured when 7 arab nations attacked them with no provocation and lost. Can you say spoils of war? Hell, we own Gibraltar because we kicked the Spanish out at some point.

People have the right to protest against a war that they believe to be wrong. It doesn't mean they don't support our boys on the ground, it means they think that there should be none of our boys there. These are clearly two different viewpoints.

We can't take a moral stance on behalf of the rest of the world, but when we see international law clearly being broken in a civil war and have the capability why shouldn't we intervene (that's at the yugoslavia comment).

The claim about WMD's appears to have been wrong. Whether Tony knew that in advance is debatable, personally I think he probably did. I'd have supported a war without that claim though. Probably not for the same reasons as the politicians supported it, but i'm more interested in the ends than the means. We can't kick out every petty dictactor in the world and impose a capatilist democracy, and imposing a government and social structure is wrong anyway. But some people clearly require removing from power. Unfortunately most change must come from within, or it won't work.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not to mention the fact that Israel was set up post WW2 as a homelan for the jews, largely by the US and UK, with no regard for the people living in the are. They can hardly now watch it fail so feel they have to support it pretty much whatever it does.

On a side note give all the crap the Jews have suffered over the years being the outsider, you would have thought it would have made them a bit more tollerent of other peopel wouldn't you? Or am I just being niave again?

Yes they have had the holocaust etc but other nations have suffered the same ethnic cleansing as the jews be it in Somalia or Russia, Cambodia even in uganda...but the other holocausts are not even recorded as being the same as the jews.

[i]We can't kick out every petty dictactor in the world and impose a capatilist democracy, and imposing a government and social structure is wrong anyway. But some people clearly require removing from power. Unfortunately most change must come from within, or it won't work. [/B]

I do agree with some of your points but If we are objective to how another country is being run we become the dictator...right or wrong we cannot dictate to anyone in the world what we think is the way to go.. look at the UK. you have Blair and his cronies that tell you what you can and not do.

Originally posted by Cyclone
non of those resolutions authorise the use of force, one against iraq did, that was the legal basis for the invasion.
Israel supports the west, that's a key difference between them and sadam.

But this resolution was from 1991, it seems a bit specious to use that over 10 years later.

Originally posted by DerekH
Yes they have had the holocaust etc but other nations have suffered the same ethnic cleansing as the jews be it in Somalia or Russia, Cambodia even in uganda...but the other holocausts are not even recorded as being the same as the jews.

I'm not having a go at anyone here just making a comment and putting a personal bias - I really hate the term 'ethnic cleansing' - what we are talking about here is genocide - the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Things like that really shouldn't be sanitised...

that was my point. We can't dictate that other countries must have a represenative elected government, they have to want it.
If they want it and they ain't got it, then we can assist them to get it.... Maybe.
what's the timescale got to do with it, the resolution had not been withdrawn, he was in breach of it, the consequences were spelt out in it.

From a historical point of view, most countries were actually formed by force. But now the geopolitical map is fairly fixed with a few violent splits taking place now and then.

I guess were lucky that we're so homogenised.

So, what we need to do, is take over the world, depose all world leaders, have a fair and representative election and elect a world leader and regional and then local leaders.

It's gotta end that way right, one world, one goverment, one person, one vote?

Originally posted by Cyclone
non of those resolutions authorise the use of force, one against iraq did, that was the legal basis for the invasion.
Israel supports the west, that's a key difference between them and sadam.

Not to mention that the occupied territories were captured when 7 arab nations attacked them with no provocation and lost. Can you say spoils of war? Hell, we own Gibraltar because we kicked the Spanish out at some point.

People have the right to protest against a war that they believe to be wrong. It doesn't mean they don't support our boys on the ground, it means they think that there should be none of our boys there. These are clearly two different viewpoints.

We can't take a moral stance on behalf of the rest of the world, but when we see international law clearly being broken in a civil war and have the capability why shouldn't we intervene (that's at the yugoslavia comment).

Let's clear up some points here. The UN didn't authorise force against Iraq. Blair and Bush took unilateral action because they knew that the UN wouldn't support it. Not a very good example of democracy at work. The fact that the UN isn't United is down to Blair and Bush who ignore it if it doesn't fall into line. It is the view of the UN Secretary General that the invasion was illegal under the UN charter.

Israel attacked the 7 Arab states you refer to (there had admittedly been a build up of their forces) They did not respond to an unprovoked attack. Your distorted view of history would appear to pay testament to the Zionist propaganda machine and it's western friends. As Israel was the aggressor they are even less entitled to be in Gaza or the West Bank, stealing land and murdereing civilians.

As we have broken international law perhaps the UN would be right to take action against the UK and US and force a pull out from Iraq? that's the logic of your argument

except that the government was advised that their action was not illegal because iraq was in continued breach of a resolution which did authorise the use of force.

Okay, I did a little research. I don't think anyone would or did condemn Israel for it's actions then. It was deliberately provoked into action, and if it had not taken it then Egypt appeared ready to invade with the intent of destroying israel entirely.

"appeared ready" ,"intent" are a million miles away from committing an unprovoked attack.
The Attorney General was appointed by Teflon Tony....he wasn't going to tell him that he couldn't have his war was he. Most experts on International Law not in the employ of Governments are quite clear that this was an illegal act. The UN's Secretary General is of the same opinon and I don't think one of Tony's henchmen is credible when contradicting his expert opinion.
It was quite clear that another resolution was required for war and if you read up Blair's speeches before he changed his mind, that was his opinion as well. He was happy to promote a second resolution when he thought that the vote was in the bag but changed his mind when France wouldn't play ball.

Today's Guardian reports on a further bout land seizures and illegal building on the West Bank. It's about time the UN resolutions relating to this were enforced, never mind Bush saying "carry on"

As you say Ned, the level of arm twisting diplomacy that went on before a "second resolution" could be put to the GA was intense.

When it became apparent that hardly any countries were supportive of an unprovoked pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state recognised by the UN, the "french veto story" was wheeled out.

Funny how the French managed to veto a resolution that was never even put to the assembly.

There were no WMDs, Blix was asking for more time to verify this - as Saddam had cleverly given full cooperation once the US has started spending serious money on shipping materiel out there.

The US could not wait for Blix to report back with his anticipated "no-WMD" report as that would have further weakened the already creaking justification for this illegal invasion.

So hostilities were initiated with a "for the media" ultimatum that saddam had 24 hours to leave the country or the US/UK would invade.

And if Saddam had left the country and gone into exile in Jordan, then of course the entire US army was going to stand down and go home....

This war was pre-ordained by the US, who succeeded roping in a sycophantic British PM, and convinced him to lie to his people (maybe even unwittingly) in order that they would support the war.

From the point of view of Bush and Blair, it would have been better for them to come straight out with something like:

"we are going to invade Iraq for three reasons
1. Because Saudi is no longer a friendly nation, we cannot count her oil reserves as guaranteed accessible.

2.We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years and we need a return on our investment

3.The economy could do with a post war boom to get it going before the next general/presidential election."

At least they would have been honest, and judging by one or two of the opinions on this board, they would not have been entirely without support.