babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » U.N. security council. Who's idea was that?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: U.N. security council. Who's idea was that?
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 03 August 2006 04:11 AM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is it just me, or is the whole concept of a UN security council a bad idea?

[ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: Ward ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 03 August 2006 08:38 AM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The U.N. itself has turned out to be, if not a bad idea, then certainly a prime example of the "Road to hell being paved with the best of intentions".
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 August 2006 08:50 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just you, again it seems there are those agitating for the dissolution of the UN because of what?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 03 August 2006 08:53 AM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because it is corrupt, incompetent and a perversion of the very ideals on which it was founded.
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 August 2006 08:55 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really? More corrupt than the US government? Or the British government or the Israeli government or een the Canadian government for starters?


Please provide proof of your corruption allegations.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 03 August 2006 11:10 AM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well here's two for starters - Oil For Food, UN Congo Sex Scandal.
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 03 August 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, so now Rev. Moon's Washington Times and Rupert Murdoch's neo-con rag the Weekly Standard have become the authoritative sources on the failings of the UN.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 03 August 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, and in reply to Ward, it's just you.

[ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: John K ]


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 03 August 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No advanced state of denial in evidence here, nope.
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 August 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, it's pretty boring to have people try to undercut the UN when their only purpose is to give free rein to George Bush and his allies.

Again, compared to the scandals in Washington, the stripping of the defence budget through non-competitive contracts, etc, any corruption in the UN is small in comparison.

Imagine if someone had used the Sponsorship Scandal to argue that Canada is a bad idea.

That makes no sense. If there is scandalous behaviour, you remove the guilty ones from office.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 03 August 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The UN is needed more than ever in these times of corporate imperialism. What isn't needed is the Security Council's elite status and ability of the five permanent members to veto the rest of the world's view.

I am sick and tired of watching the Washington based fascists vetoing any resolution that doesn't serve their corporate interests. (They have vetoed more resolutions than all of the 4 other permanent members combined). Than these same neo-cons mouth off that the UN is ineffectual; without mentioning their veto (see Lebanon / Israel) as the cause.

Scrap the Security Council and strengthen the General Assembly.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Routine distortions, exaggerations and unreported context about the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (OFF) makes it arguably one of the worst-covered stories of our times. That's hardly an accident. The story confirms a cherished piece of the conservative worldview, namely that the U.N. is populated by corrupt, inept and hostile anti-American bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to constrain the United States from using its unrivalled -- but wholly benevolent -- power to influence world affairs.

Oil-for-Food has been used by critics of the U.N. not only to disparage the institution as a whole, as well as the idea of multilateral diplomacy, but also to explain away opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq as being motivated mostly by craven profit-seeking.

Sometimes it's offered as direct justification for the war in Iraq, such as when an editorial in Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times reported, "There are growing questions as to whether Saddam Hussein may have directed program revenues to terrorist organizations." Those "growing questions," as far as anyone can tell, were invented from whole cloth right there at the Washington Times. read the whole article



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 03 August 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am sick and tired of watching the Washington based fascists vetoing any resolution that doesn't serve their corporate interests. (They have vetoed more resolutions than all of the 4 other permanent members combined).


I would ask you to provide a source for that claim, but you won't be able to, since I know it to be wrong.

It might be right if you don't count USSR vetoes, of which there were a great many.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2006 01:12 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the United Nations' 58-year history, the Soviet Union and its successor state, the Russian Federation, have used the veto 117 times - most coming during Cold War decades.

The United States is second with 73. Since 1990, America has cast more Security Council vetoes than any country, many of them favoring Israel, a longtime ally.


Source

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 03 August 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Khimia:
Because it is corrupt, incompetent and a perversion of the very ideals on which it was founded.

The entire operation is corrupt? You mean those folks getting food into Darfur, or Lebanon are corrupt, incompetent and have none none of the humanist ideals the UN was founded in?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 03 August 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It wasn't that long ago that some folks attempted to get the UN removed from the clutches of the u.s of a. to a more reliable and less arrogant nation. In fact, there was considerable talk about moving it to Canada.

I think it is high time that the idea was revisited and that Canada be put forward as a far better host for such an august concept as an Assembly of United Nations.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 August 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Copps is empty in Hamilton for the majority of the year we could just house the new UN there.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 03 August 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There seem to be 2 issues here which some postures are obscuring.

The UN -- which probably no babbler will take up as a worthless cause...

and the Security Council -- the 5 permanent members of the Council are France, Russia, China, the UK and the US. Any one of these members can veto any resolution before them, stymieing the UN voice.

Most recently the Security Council proposed an immediate ceasefire for all in the current Lebanon/Israel/Palestine crisis. The US vetoed.

So yes, I think there are some clear problems with the Security Council of the UN.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 August 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Siren, the suggestion was that the Security Council be ABOLISHED.

Your complaint is about the exercise of the veto power, which is a far less drastic proposal.

That said, the great powers will not give up their veto power.

At present, the US would probably use it as an excuse to leave the UN entirely if their veto were removed.

All of us can find vetos which we think are wrong in principle. But the system which forces the members to come together and consult still has huge benefits.

Even in the Iraq case, where Bush ignored the Security Council, his position was weakened, worldwide, as a result.

It would be more democratic if UN decisions were taken more democratically. But that won't happen, not in this century.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 03 August 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Technically speaking what would the general assembly need to do in order to change the nature of the security council?
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 03 August 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, Siren, the suggestion was that the Security Council be ABOLISHED.

Hmm. I didn't get that from the original post. But for the rest of your post, I certainly agree.

The question of whose idea was the security council -- perhaps someone has a better source than Wikipedia, but here goes:

quote:
The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

The French Republic
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
The Republic of China
Two of the original members, the Republic of China and Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states, even though Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations has not been accordingly amended:

The People's Republic of China
The Russian Federation
.........................

The current five permanent members of the Security Council are the only nations recognised as possessing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although it lacks universal validity, as some nuclear nations have not signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body. India, Pakistan, possibly North Korea and Israel (though Israel has never itself admitted to nuclear weapons possession) possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty. As of 2004, four of the five permanent members are also the world's top four weapons exporters when measured by arms value; China is 7th.

Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however any "nay" vote from a permanent member would block the passage of the resolution in question.


To the victor continue to go the spoils of war. I wonder if there might be more appropriate values on which to base membership in the Security Council.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 August 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obviously, there has to be movement over who is a great power. It cannot be forever based on WWII.

Probably Germany is a stronger power than France. But France has nuclear weapons.

And maybe India belongs in there. Or Brazil?

But these are maybe's to me. I am unsure how India's GNP compares to that of France, say.

So, maybe some day there will be changes to the composition of the Security Council. I don't see it as a crucial or immediate question, though.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 03 August 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Technically speaking what would the general assembly need to do in order to change the nature of the security council?

Amendments to the UN Charter are governed by Article 108 which reads as follows:
"Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council."
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

This gives each of the permanent members veto power on changes to the Security Council. This makes reform difficult though not impossible.

Back in the 1960s, Security Council membership was expanded from eleven to fifteen members. A current reform proposal is to add emerging regional powers (India and Brazil are most frequently mentioned) as permanent Security Council members though without a veto.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 August 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's my perception that both the initial question and the thread title have been edited since I have responded.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 03 August 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Really? More corrupt than the US government? Or the British government or the Israeli government or een the Canadian government for starters?


Please provide proof of your corruption allegations.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eb5ea214d6.htm

http://fatima.freehosting.net/Articles/Art4.htm

http://www.petitiononline.com/iic613u/petition.html

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/email-from-un-post-claims-used-as-human-shields

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1153581422.shtml

just a few examples of what the global despots at the UN have been up to.


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 03 August 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I Love your unbiased and insightful sources. Any evidence that these UN 'tyrants' have succeeded in blocking the ambitions of the WhiteHouse tyrants yet? Just Wonderin...
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 03 August 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
I Love your unbiased and insightful sources. Any evidence that these UN 'tyrants' have succeeded in blocking the ambitions of the WhiteHouse tyrants yet? Just Wonderin...


So what you are inferring is that any evidence disproving your point of view is obviously biased eh!
Outstanding!


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 03 August 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what you are inferring is that any evidence disproving your point of view is obviously biased eh!
Outstanding!

He's inferring nothing. He may be implying your sources are risible garbage. If I'm mistaken and he's not, let me come right out and say it. Your sources are crap. That map you posted on the other thread is nonesense. If you want to have any future here you'll have to do better. I'm not hopeful.

[ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 03 August 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by oldgoat:
[QB]

He's inferring nothing. He may be implying your sources are risible garbage. If I'm mistaken and he's not, let me come right out and say it. Your sources are crap. That map you posted on the other thread is nonesense. If you want to have any future here you'll have to do better. I'm not hopeful.

So what would be an unbiased news source?


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 03 August 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you think the United Nations should have any armed capability at all, you need a Security Council to guide it.

If you have a Security Council, you have to have all major powers with vetoes. Otherwise the possibility exists of a superpower losing a vote that puts it at war against the UN. Best that when the superpowers disagree, the Security Council does nothing.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 04 August 2006 12:55 AM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now ,that's a good point!
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 04 August 2006 01:16 AM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps ambassaders to the UN should be directly elected.( It could be a condition of UN membership)
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 August 2006 08:52 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by astrocreep2000:
just a few examples of what the global despots at the UN have been up to.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Those are examples of "opinions" and nothing more.

The FreeReuplic now that is worth a: LMAO

The World Net daily is worth a double: LMAO LMAO

And the rest are just too pathetic to even waste a laugh,


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 August 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Period China* France Britain US USSR/
Russia Total
Total 4-5 18 32 81 122 258



2006 - - - 1 - 1
2005 - - - - - -
2004 - - - 2 1 3



2003 - - - 2 - 2
2002 - - - 2 - 2
2001 - - - 2 - 2
2000 - - - - - 0
1999 1 - - - - 1
1998 - - - - - 0
1997 1 - - 2 - 3
1996 - - - - - 0



1986-95 - 3 8 24 2 37
1976-85 - 9 11 34 6 60
1966-75 2 2 10 12 7 33
1956-65 - 2 3 - 26 31
1946-55 (1*) 2 - - 80 83

Table compiled by Global Policy Forum from UN information


While Spector's analysis is not factually correct,his intent is. The US uses its veto whenever SC decisions are not aligned with American foreign policy objectives.


The UN does need reform.Reform to mitigate the skew in power and control that the US currently enjoys.

Law of the Sea,ICC,Landmine Ban etc,who is the holdout that refuses to join the rest of the world?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 August 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Law of the Sea,ICC,Landmine Ban etc,who is the holdout that refuses to join the rest of the world?

THE USA


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 04 August 2006 04:18 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Those are examples of "opinions" and nothing more.

The FreeReuplic now that is worth a: LMAO

The World Net daily is worth a double: LMAO LMAO

And the rest are just too pathetic to even waste a laugh,



If they are Laughable prove them wrong!Some people get their news from sources other than the Communist Brainwashing Corporation.


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 04 August 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not our job to prove every unsubstantiated premise wrong, it's yours to show there's something to em beyond consistently skewed rightwing sources. Logic, accepted facts, consistent reasoning helps. And no, most of us aren't 'communists' either. Doesn't help your case to act like anything to the left of Fox News affiliates is Stalinist propoganda.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 04 August 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Not our job to prove every unsubstantiated premise wrong, it's yours to show there's something to em beyond consistently skewed rightwing sources. Logic, accepted facts, consistent reasoning helps. And no, most of us aren't 'communists' either. Doesn't help your case to act like anything to the left of Fox News affiliates is Stalinist propoganda.

Fox news does not hide the fact it presents right wing bias.Unlike the MSM here in Canada which employs blatant subterfuge to promote Leftist ideals,as do many much of the media and around the world.
Here is but one example of the medias ongoing crusade to demonize Israel.

[Long url edited out by moderator to reduce sidescroll.]

[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 August 2006 08:53 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Example of blatent subterfuge please?!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 04 August 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Example of blatent subterfuge please?!

Click on the link moron!


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 04 August 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
astrocreep2000, would you please edit your url -- it is too long and causing sidescroll.

Try this format: photo .

Hit reply with quote to see the formatting. Thanks.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 04 August 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
astrocreep2000, would you please edit your url -- it is too long and causing sidescroll.

Try this format: photo .

Hit reply with quote to see the formatting. Thanks.


Sorry


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006

posted 04 August 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for astrocreep2000     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by astrocreep2000:

Fox news does not hide the fact it presents right wing bias.Unlike the MSM here in Canada which employs blatant subterfuge to promote Leftist ideals,as do much of the media and around the world.
Here is but one example of the medias ongoing crusade to demonize Israel.

Long url edited by moderator to reduce sidescroll


[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 04 August 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
astrocreep2000, I'm sorry I was unclear: You will have to hit the reply with quote function on my post to see the formatting.

But with respect to the content -- there are many stories of a similar nature. Sometimes the media doesn't get it correct out of hurry, time constraints, ignorance, etc. It is not always malicious.

And sometimes certain media are actively trying to sway the public. Whatever way they are trying to sway us, of course we need to be alert to potential bias.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 August 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was recently asked if I thought the UN had lost its credibility in the wake of its inability to take any decisive action against Israel in the wake of its current campaign in Lebanon. My answer to this question would have to be no. The United Nations didn't lose its credibility on July 13, 2006 when Israel began its current war. It lost its credibility many years ago when it failed to enforce UN Resolution 242, which called for the"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency". There are others who would argue that its credibility faded many years earlier.

As long as Israel can occupy lands that do not belong to it without UN sanctions or other repercussions, the UN will have no credibility. As long as Israel can steal peoples land from under their feet and resettle its own citizens in buildings that the Israeli government builds for them, the UN will have no credibility. As long as the Israeli military can attack civilian populations and kill them wantonly, the UN will have no credibility. As long as the government of Israel can produce and store nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction without any internationally sanctioned punishment while its neighbors are attacked and destroyed merely because they might have such weaponry, the UN will have no credibility.

Source


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 04 August 2006 10:11 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You really Are on another planet dude. Our Asper led media is Hardly anti-Israel OR leftwing. Oy, this is Too dumb to even bother with any longer.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 August 2006 10:58 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
uh what does that article have to do about the UN, and one article does not make a body of evidence, nor does the articles error suggest blatent subterfuge.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca