How many times has the the United States used their veto to stop Palestine joining the UN?
US Republician Candidates
- Thread starter EGuitarStar
- Start date
Caporegime
I don't know, perhaps you can tell us. Bear in mind that there is currently no such nation as 'Palestine.'
Last edited:
My only reason to say that about the whole Israel/US issue is as is seen in the news often Israel are always looking for support for military action to thier old pal the US. Then the US has to calm the Isralies down via a press conference etc.
Off topic sort of, I dont see how Israel think they can make every country in their region of the world dispise them and then just assume that everything is going to be alright because they have America on thier side. Watching the Top Gear special opened my eyes at how tight they are and maybe even scared as they wont allow you in to Israel through what seems around 80% of thier border and if you have gone through any of the country's they seem to think are going to war with them.
Well, how many times has the Palestinian Authority submitted a request for full recognition to the UNSC? Zero as far as I know, which means that the US has never used its veto. One could refer to the recognition of Palestine as a full member of UNESCO, but given that the United States doesn't hold a veto power over their decisions, its not entirely relevant.
Caporegime
Well said, I quite agree.
Are you forgetting Libya? Not to mention Obama's predecessor Clinton, who launched attacks on Somalia presumably just to make a film. All I'm trying to say is that choosing between Republicans and Democrats is like flipping a double sided coin.
Did you watch the video or just read the title? If you watch the video it outlines his views on foreign policy quite well.
Are you really unable to accept criticism of your beloved Obama?
Last edited:
Libya wasn't a war according to the United States. A state of war can only be declared by congress, congress wasn't consulted thus, it was not a 'war'. Nor was it considered such by the UK, France or by NATO. And Clinton's worst atrocities are much worse than that (read: South Sudanese missile attacks). It's true that the GOP and the democrats are mightily close together, but Noam Chomsky (a man with whom I disagree on a whole hell of a lot) makes the observation that a small difference at the top of a system as huge as the US government can have a substantial multiplier effect. However, if you do believe that nothing will 'change' if you vote in a new executive, you're left with having to vote for the best 'person', and in that sense, Obama is a clear victor.
I can't see any formal requests for full recognition in there.
Honestly like many others I can't see past Obama no matter who wins the Republican race.
Oh right, so as long as we don't classify it as a war it's all fun and games? Our militaries went in, stayed in, shot people, our planes bombed things? This happened for months. I don't really care what the official classifications are, that's a war afaic. Obama got a lot of agro for Libya due to the sheer cost of it let alone the fact he made America once again meddle in foreign affairs. If anything it's a particularly bad war, at least in Afghanistan there is a clear enemy that is somewhat capable of fighting back.
Ok, not full recognition, I got that wrong, but you can see the obvious trend America has towards protecting Israel to the detriment of surrounding areas.
The only guy I could even remotely see myself voting for was Jon Huntsman, but he was dead from the off. Newt and Rick are just pathetic, they won't win the nomination and there is no way that they would ever win a general election. It's extraordinary that Obama is still receiving poll numbers even remotely close to what he's getting, due to how dire the economy is. But I suppose, no matter how bad the economy gets, it'll never be quite as bad as the GOP ballot.
The only guy I could even remotely see myself voting for was Jon Huntsman, but he was dead from the off. Newt and Rick are just pathetic, they won't win the nomination and there is no way that they would ever win a general election. It's extraordinary that Obama is still receiving poll numbers even remotely close to what he's getting, due to how dire the economy is. But I suppose, no matter how bad the economy gets, it'll never be quite as bad as the GOP ballot.
Not too sure about that, at the moment in my opinion the only man capable of stopping Romney is Santorum. And plus he doesn't annoy me as much as Romney which is a big plus.
Didnt Bush sign a treaty with the Iraq government to end US involvment in Iraq by the 1st Jan 2012 anyway?
Fair enough, but defining what war actually is becomes much harder than simply saying it is any armed conflict when you take the question seriously. And it's not a choice between defining conflict as 'war', or defining it as 'fun and games'. For the record, I'm not an isolationist/conservative when it comes to foreign policy. I don't have an automatic problem with the United States projecting itself internationally, as a point of principle. I won't go into the Libya/Afghanistan questions individually.
I don't have any particular interest in changing your mind on these things (though, I do really enjoy the discussion), but there is a superb debate on the merits (or otherwise) or an interventionist foreign policy:
This can balance out the Ron Paul videos above.
I couldn't agree more. Some of the vetoes have been genuinely disgusting. And that's ignoring the sheer stupidity of creating a Jewish state within an Arab heartland, in the first place.
I don't think anyone can stop Romney, I think his victory is a Mittevitability.Not too sure about that, at the moment in my opinion the only man capable of stopping Romney is Santorum. And plus he doesn't annoy me as much as Romney which is a big plus.
But Santorum... Regardless of the fact I disagree with almost everything I have ever heard him say (save Iran, in which I am in partial agreement), I find him very irritating.
It's easily the most interesting thing about him.Still can't get past the urban dictionary definition of Santorum though
Did you hear about what he and his family did, after his wife produced their stillborn son, Gabriel? I would never dream of even contemplating what it would feel like to lose a child in that way, but I can't help but shudder when I think about how the Santorum family dealt with it...I don't think anyone can stop Romney, I think his victory is a Mittevitability.
But Santorum... Regardless of the fact I disagree with almost everything I have ever heard him say (save Iran, in which I am in partial agreement), I find him very irritating.
Have been reading through some articles which seem to back you up. Romney had something like 20m in the bank after Maine while Santorum had less than 1m with the others on 2-3m. With that sort of difference in funding there is most definately no stopping him.
Oh and nice pun there by the way
That, plus the fact Mitt has close to $200million in personal capital that he can invest in his campaign. He allegedly spent $50million of his own money on his bid in 2008, and he lost. Ha.
I think Mitt is a pretty solid candidate, certainly a lot better than he was in 2008 when he was just apologising for the previous administration. It's just a shame that you can find so much videos and accounts of him claiming to have near opposite views to what he has now, when he was trying to win a different election. Still, I don't think he can beat Obama which makes me pretty happy.
I think Mitt is a pretty solid candidate, certainly a lot better than he was in 2008 when he was just apologising for the previous administration. It's just a shame that you can find so much videos and accounts of him claiming to have near opposite views to what he has now, when he was trying to win a different election. Still, I don't think he can beat Obama which makes me pretty happy.