North Korea & Iran, two states in need of "regime change"

[fuji]

since we simply cannot prevent them from having weapons and we need a rule or philosophy to prevent this, we simply cannot base our rule on such a subjective term like "state sponsor of terrorism".

See my "democracies are better" thread. I reject your attempted moral equivalence between Iran and proper nations.

Transgressions by democracies can generally be addressed by media pressure--as I recall it got pretty sticky for a bunch of politicians when it came out they were supporting the contras. I don't think that went well for them. In the case of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes it seems that media pressure generally has little effect, it requires military intervention to get them to back off.

 

[rld]

See my "democracies are better" thread. I reject your attempted moral equivalence between Iran and proper nations.

Transgressions by democracies can generally be addressed by media pressure--as I recall it got pretty sticky for a bunch of politicians when it came out they were supporting the contras. I don't think that went well for them. In the case of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes it seems that media pressure generally has little effect, it requires military intervention to get them to back off.

All nations are equal under the law. I know you want to create a two or more tiered world system, but it is an impractical fantasy of yours.

And the only reason Iran-contra was a big deal was that it breeched the law, nobody gave a shit about the civilians the contras or UNITA were killing. And Reagan's legacy seems quite intact.

 

[flubadub]

I reject your attempted moral equivalence between Iran and proper nations.

That's because you've also projected your racist attitudes into countries as well.
Not only do you apparently feel some people are less worthy of human rights, but you also are willing to condemn whole countries just for not having a gov't you approve of. If you believe in democracy, where everyone gets a vote whether they are an asshole or not, what's the difference in supporting a UN where every country gets a vote, whether they are an asshole or not?

 

[landscaper]

Because they have oil, and they nationalized it.
That made a bunch of people quite unhappy.

The fixed elections nationalization of oil, media and removal of civil liberties , not to mention the funding of groups hostile to the governments of surrounding countries has made Chavez a bit of an outsider in that part of the world.

If his neighbors get the idea he has Imperial ambitions he has problems.
There is concern he is tring to resurect the Soviet UNion model with himself in the Stalin seat.

 

[fuji]

All nations are equal under the law.

What law is that? Can you cite it?

The reality is that they are NOT equal. It is mandatory for Iran to comply with the Additional Protocol, whereas it's voluntary for other nations. Under international law that is, as it stands today.

Assuming, that is, that you consider binding resolutions of the UN Security Council to be part of international law.

 

[anomandar]

So quite what does this mean JTK? Let the bad guys run amok until they decide to attack London or Paris or Vancouver? Velvet or Tulip Revolutions only occur when the regime does not have overwhelming power - do you believe that applies to either North Korea or Iran?

U are absolutely right to be paranoid but u choose to be paranoid over N Korea and Iran?

C'mon man, step away from CNN and stop drinking the cool aid.

 

[flubadub]

The reality is that they are NOT equal. It is mandatory for Iran to comply with the Additional Protocol, whereas it's voluntary for other nations. Under international law that is, as it stands today.

Sure, Fuji.
Iran has to comply with a treaty they didn't ratify.
And its also mandatory that Israel respond to the following UN resolutions:

Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 506
Resolution 508:
Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 511
Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 516
Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 519
Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 523
Resolution 524
Resolution 529
Resolution 531
Resolution 536
Resolution 538
Resolution 543
Resolution 549
Resolution 551
Resolution 555
Resolution 557
Resolution 561
Resolution 563
Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 575
Resolution 576
Resolution 583
Resolution 584
Resolution 586
Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 590
Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 594
Resolution 596
Resolution 599
Resolution 603
Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 609
Resolution 611
Resolution 613
Resolution 617
Resolution 624
Resolution 630
Resolution 633
Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 639 (31 Jul 1989)
Resolution 641 (30 Aug 1989): " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 645 (29 Nov 1989)
Resolution 648 (31 Jan 1990)[1] The Security Council extends the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon until July 31, 1990.
Resolution 655 (31 May 1990)
Resolution 659 (31 Jul 1990)
Resolution 672 (12 Oct 1990): " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673 (24 Oct 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 679 (30 Nov 1990)
Resolution 681 (20 Dec 1990): " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 684 (30 Jan 1991)
Resolution 694 (24 May 1991): " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 695 (30 May 1991)
Resolution 701 (31 Jul 1991)
Resolution 722 (29 Nov 1991)
Resolution 726 (06 Jan 1992): " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 734 (29 Jan 1992)
Resolution 756 (29 May 1992)
Resolution 768 (30 Jul 1992)
Resolution 790 (25 Nov 1992)
Resolution 799 (18 Dec 1992): ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 803 (28 Jan 1993)
Resolution 830 (26 May 1993)
Resolution 852 (28 Jul 1993)
Resolution 887 (29 Nov 1993)
Resolution 895 (28 Jan 1994)
Resolution 904 (18 Mar 1994): Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.
Resolution 938 (28 Jul 1994): extends mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon until January 31, 1995.
Resolution 1039 (29 Jan 1996)
Resolution 1052 (18 Apr 1996)
Resolution 1057 (30 May 1996)
Resolution 1068 (30 Jul 1996)
Resolution 1073 (28 Sep 1996)
Resolution 1081 (27 Nov 1996)
Resolution 1095 (28 Jan 1997)
Resolution 1109 (28 May 1997)
Resolution 1122 (29 Jul 1997)
Resolution 1139 (21 Nov 1997)
Resolution 1151 (30 Jan 1998)
Resolution 1169 (27 May 1998)
Resolution 1188 (30 Jul 1998)
Resolution 1211 (25 Nov 1998)
Resolution 1223 (28 Jan 1999)
Resolution 1243 (27 May 1999)
Resolution 1254 (30 Jul 1999)
Resolution 1276 (24 Nov 1999)
Resolution 1288 (31 Jan 2000)
Resolution 1300 (31 May 2000)
Resolution 1310 (27 Jul 2000)
Resolution 1322 (07 Oct 2000)
Resolution 1328 (27 Nov 2000)
Resolution 1337 (30 Jan 2001)
Resolution 1351 (30 May 2001)
Resolution 1397 (12 Mar 2002) the first resolution to explicitly call for a two-state solution.
Resolution 1435 (24 Sep 2002) called for an end to Israeli measures in and around Ramallah.
Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.
Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.
[edit]

 

[landscaper]

Every one of those resolutions is the result of an attack on Isreal or the defence against terrorist attacks, I don't suppose you feel like putting the countries ant who actually voted on those resolutions on line?

Might make a difference if the context of the resolutions was also present

 

[flubadub]

Every one of those resolutions is the result of an attack on Isreal or the defence against terrorist attacks, I don't suppose you feel like putting the countries ant who actually voted on those resolutions on line?

Might make a difference if the context of the resolutions was also present

The usual equivocating.
You miss the point, Landscaper. Fuji complains that the one UN SC resolution against Iran gives you the justification for 'bombing Iran into the stone age', yet ignores any and all resolutions against Israel.

He has no morals, but likes to pretend he does.

 

[landscaper]

Fuji and his particular version of morals is of absolutly no interest to me beyond validating any disscussions and or arguments that we may have on the board. Your list of sanctions is for the most part irrelavent. Non from what I can tell from the little you posted are from or endorsed by the Security Council. The bulk of them are the generic resolutions that occur whenever Isreal offends the sensibilities of a dictator somewhere on the planet by simply existing. The fact that enough votes were found and or bought to condem Isreal for defending itself from attack is business as usual. The surrounding countries are as much to blame as the Isrealies for the plight of the Palistinians, as well the existance of Hamas and Hezbolla in Gaza and its enveirons never seems to get the attention of the general assembly is spite of attacks on civililian targets and suicide bombings.

The Palistinian /Isreali conflict is also unlikely to result in WMD being deployed which can not be said regardign teh current leadership in Tehran.
As far as the NPT treaty goes, Iran did sign on to it and Isreal never has , as such Iran does come under the perview of the treaty provisions for inspection , construction etc. Things they have been ignoring. or delaying beyond the permitted time lines in the treaty.

 

[flubadub]

Your list of sanctions is for the most part irrelavent. Non from what I can tell from the little you posted are from or endorsed by the Security Council. The bulk of them are the generic resolutions that occur whenever Isreal offends the sensibilities of a dictator somewhere on the planet by simply existing. The fact that enough votes were found and or bought to condem Isreal for defending itself from attack is business as usual.

The list of resolutions is from the some 225 UN SC resolutions against Israel.
None of those were just UN resolutions.

As such they should carry at least equal weight, perhaps more, since the bulk of them are because Israel refuses to respond or settle with the Palestinians.

 

[landscaper]

The list of resolutions is from the some 225 UN SC resolutions against Israel.
None of those were just UN resolutions.

As such they should carry at least equal weight, perhaps more, since the bulk of them are because Israel refuses to respond or settle with the Palestinians.

You nrecall the part where I said some context would be nice...

Help Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolution 520 Full TextUN Security Council Resolution 520 to free Lebanon from Syrian, Israeli and Palestinian occupation.

You seem to have left out the part about the other occuping parties...

 

[landscaper]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 803, adopted unanimously on January 28, 1993, after recalling previous resolutions on the topic including 501 (1982), 508 (1982), 509 (1982) and 520 (1982) as well as studying the report by the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) approved in 426 (1978), the Council decided to extend the mandate of UNIFIL for a further six months until July 31, 1993.

803 regarding the 6 month extension of the UNIFILL forces in Lebanon..

I just picked these two off of the list you posted.. This one is an extension at 5 others regardig peace keeping forces...

Did you actually read any of the things you posted or did you just google S.C. Isreal and copy and paste the list?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1300, adopted unanimously on May 31, 2000, after considering a report by the Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), the Council extended its mandate for a further six months until November 30, 2000.

OK thats three I picked at random none of which are actually what you said they were ., ie. UNSC sanctions towards Isreal

Could you at least maybe try and do some actual research instead of wasteing our time with mindless propaganda and blather

 

[fuji]

Sure, Fuji.
Iran has to comply with a treaty they didn't ratify.
And its also mandatory that Israel respond to the following UN resolutions:

Which of those are binding resolutions? Which of them reference Chapter VII of the UN Charter??

Oops.

 

[flubadub]

Which of those are binding resolutions? Which of them reference Chapter VII of the UN Charter??

I'll go back and check, but lets consider all of the resoltions before 1989 as possible, since the UN SC didn't invoke chapter VII on resolutions until then.

Are you now trying to raise the bar and say that only chapter VII resolutions count?
Once again trying to justify putting Israel above the law.

the point is, you can't call on UN resolutions as a call to 'bomb Iran back to the stone age' until you accept that Israel also must be held accountable to its own UN resolutions, just as pathetic as your calls for Iran to be held to the additional protocols that it didn't ratify while Israel is allowed to be one of 3 countries in the world not part of the NPT.

 

[landscaper]

I'll go back and check, but lets consider all of the resoltions before 1989 as possible, since the UN SC didn't invoke chapter VII on resolutions until then.

Are you now trying to raise the bar and say that only chapter VII resolutions count?
Once again trying to justify putting Israel above the law.

the point is, you can't call on UN resolutions as a call to 'bomb Iran back to the stone age' until you accept that Israel also must be held accountable to its own UN resolutions, just as pathetic as your calls for Iran to be held to the additional protocols that it didn't ratify while Israel is allowed to be one of 3 countries in the world not part of the NPT.

could you at least read the things before you post them and try to get some relavan t ones

 

[fuji]

Are you now trying to raise the bar and say that only chapter VII resolutions count?

Given that we're talking about bombing a country, and it's chapter VII that authorizes the use of force, yes.

As for binding resolutions I think you'll find that few of the resolutions on Israel are binding, and that any that are don't say what you claim.

 

[flubadub]

could you at least read the things before you post them and try to get some relavan t ones

Its quite relevant to point out that Israel has been the target of some 225 UN SC resolutions, of which very few have been honoured.

 

[blackrock13]

Its quite relevant to point out that Israel has been the target of some 225 UN SC resolutions, of which very few have been honoured.

As Land pointed out, you post stuff without knowing the facts. You tried to post this huge list of resolutions making them look impressive when many of them were just updates and not unique at all. You also proved you didn't read them. Whatever relevance that is contained in them is over shadowed by you attempted snow job.

 

[landscaper]

As Land pointed out, you post stuff without knowing the facts. You tried to post this huge list of resolutions making them look impressive when many of them were just updates and not unique at all. You also proved you didn't read them. Whatever relevance that is contained in them is over shadowed by you attempted snow job.

Thanks for saving me the typing