BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:06 PM

Ya figger?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:41 PM

It's about politics. Obama is beholden to AIPAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 02:06 PM

Trouble maker!

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 10:27 AM

Talking of ill-gotten gains in the mandated territory that in 1923 came to be called Palestine:

1948 - Gaza: Invaded and occupied by Egyptian forces until 1967.

1948 - West Bank of the river Jordan: Invaded and occupied by Jordanian forces until 1967

1948 - East Jerusalem: Invaded and occupied by Jordanian forces until 1967

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 05:38 PM

I think you're right guest...but some have not the strength to change their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 05:24 PM

akenaten, i think youd get less tumble weed here if folks gavd a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:13 PM

this thread has been surprisingly quiet akenaten. I personally concur with your assertion that obama, albeit a nice guy, is merely another puppet of the established us plutocracy. Mind you, im still dissapointed hes failed to raise to the challenge of today in favour of the vote of tomorrow, considering the stakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

It seems an eminently sensible resolution. 999's post seems to me to be beyond barking mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 03:07 PM

What I would like to know is, where have all the "liberals" gone who promised a messiah.......have we been conned again?

Whats the difference between left and right when we get down to the wire?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 12:25 PM

ps to above, by which i mean 'point conceded'

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 12:14 PM

wel said 999 in your post above @ Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:32 PM.

well said indeed !


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 11:57 AM

sorry q missed the point made about fellow western nations regards this unsc resolution. As i understand it all member nations who voted, including france germany and britain, supported the resolution. Apart from these more 'weighty' entities, around two hundred other countries were supposedly involved in the drafting of the resolution and happy to see it brought to the table. What proportion of these were 'western' i do not know however.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 10:14 AM

i believe the vote was 14 to 1 in favour of the resolution. I have read a number of critical comments from various sources, including foriegn papers in english, some which have characterised the us as "torpedoing" the unsc resolution. Whatever the attitude of fellow western nations - privately or publicly - it can only inflame further popular hatred of us 'interventions' in the middle-east at a time one would imagine it to be singularly unwise to do so. I suspect obama isn't getting a great deal of sleep right now. But then again, he won't be alone there. Its an amazing time. And considering the major upheavels currently occuring I somehow doubt this resolution will make too much difference to the shape of things to come in the long term in any event, bar adding a bit of extra fuel to the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:47 PM

The UK, China, France, Russia and U. S. are permanent members of the Security Council; Germany and Brazil are serving as non-permanent members.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: chazkratz
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:08 PM

The main reason the other European nations were not listed as opponents of the resolution is that they are not members of the security council, where the resolution was passed. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:01 PM

framus
MC policy is that full texts of things freely available on the web are only expected to posted here in abbreviated form (with a link to the url), sufficient to illustrate the points being made. Such full texts may be deleted by the admin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: framus
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:13 PM

I see the full text was posted and deleted - why and by whom?
I thought we were supposed to be the last bastion of democracy here.
Maybe not!

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 07:16 PM

Hmmm... can't see Australia there either ... Looks like we are 'suckholes to the USA' ... again .... as Latham said ....

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:34 PM

Indeed, there seems to be quite a lot in there that Mr Obaba could object to......(tongue FIRMLY in cheek)

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:23 PM

Missed a few European nations such as Luxembourg and Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Switzerland, etc., but they do not have the weight of Germany, France, UK.
They may have voted or abstained, I haven't seen the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:14 PM

lively, that may be in the minds of the 'western nations', but absent were signatories from Europe and UK (except Belgium, Ireland and Austria), and Japan, China, Brazil.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

Also, as I put earlier, it's a significant international diplomatic faux pass at a time of such great popular unrest among Arab nations, particularly as the US is losing it's hold over areas it considers to be of strategic import (both to itself and of course importantly Israel). The US administration must know this to be so as I'm sure Obama is no dummy, and yet they have taken a course of isolating the US on this issue, not only in the eyes of Arab nations currently undergoing much change, but fellow Western nations also.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:41 PM

My simplification of the resolution is that it called all Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 illegal, and also called for continued negotiations.

This seems to agree with US statements, but of cours unfortunately the US administration will not push Israel to relinquish their 'ill-gotten gains', to use the old cliché.
it is also obvious that Israel will not relinquish the settlements, and will slowly, inch-by-inch, to take control of the entire "Judea-Samaria region. Their Jewish mythology tells them that it is theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:57 PM

I have not read the text of the UN Security Council's resolution, I have however read in a number of news pieces that it's contents fully accord with US stated policy. Indeed the Morning Star goes so far as to say:

"The resolution sponsors had agonised over the resolution's wording for weeks, determined that there should be not a single dot or comma of variance from the Obama administration's public pronouncements."

I fear that this is one of the reasons we might be cynical as to the claims made as to why the US used it's veto, that and the fact that the US routinely uses it's veto where Israeli interests are concerned and as such it was generally considered to be a foregone conclusion (or that it would abstain at best).

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: quokka
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:41 PM

Thanks Sorcha

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:35 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49142006/Isr-draft-resolution-veto
Let your fingers do the walking

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:31 PM

Surely not!....Must have been REALLY nasty!

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: quokka
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM

apparently the full text was posted here but quickly deleted ??

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:31 AM

Hello Richard, I too would like to see the full text as Bill seems to know that it is full of nasties.

If that were really the case, why was it supported by so many other countries?

Bill.....could you enlighten us?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 07:15 AM

I know exactly who both of them were ... :-P

Surprising h0ow many 'foreigners' actually know more about the USA than many Yanks... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:11 AM

Foolestroupe: "That is what the Congress has stated ever since the First US President ... just ask John Adams ... :-)"

First President was George Washington, why not ask him, as long as you're talking to dead people!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 07:35 PM

And the exact text of the resolution was?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 07:29 PM

"Reality bites in one the hind quarters, and the information on the inside, does not comport with what one thought as an outsider."

Should read, "Reality bites one in the hind quarters, and the information on the inside does not comport with what one thought as an outsider."

Ah, much clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 07:29 PM

That is what the Congress has stated ever since the First US President ... just ask John Adams ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 07:27 PM

I believe that Mr. Obama came to the Presidency full-well meaning to do the things he promised. But it can be a funny thing when it comes to intention vs action. Reality bites in one the hind quarters, and the information on the inside, does not comport with what one thought as an outsider. Maybe President Obama has information the rest of us are not privy to, thus his often not living up to the expectations of the Left (or left). Not that we on the right (or the Right) think he's any great shakes either.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:58 PM

Now I'm confused, do you mean that he has to do as he is told?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:55 PM

Because other things were bundled to it that he couldn't in good conscience sign, as was stated above. (Or, if not in good conscience, then in either (a) in view of his constituency, or (b) of his corporate overlords.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM

But why did Obama use the veto?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:48 PM

Sunset John sez, And, yes, Sorcha 'money talks' is the answer to every question for the Left (or the left, if you prefer).

Ah, so at least one side of the aisle is grounded in reality.

Q sez, The Israelis have no intention of ever allowing a fully independent Palestine on the west bank (The Judea and Samaria areas of the Israeli administration).

Yep. Got 'er in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:36 PM

Well I dont know why they advanced that opinion, other than, Mr Obama obviously badly needs to get the peace process back on track for electoral reasons.....so why would he sabotage any chance of dialogue between Palistinians and Israelis, unless being pressurised to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Lox
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:32 PM

It was revealed recently in the press, I think possibly via wikileaks, that the palestinian authourities were in fact prepared to concede a large proportion of settled land in exchange for a peace deal, but that this offer was rejected by Israel.

I think that that one side agreeing not to annex the territory of another side would be a preetty fair start to a peace deal.

A peace deal based on allowing one party to continue to annexing the other party's territory would be quite nonsensical.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:32 PM

Put the issue of security--both Israel`s and the Palestinian`s on the table. There are too many people using the plight of the Palestinians as a lever to either finance terrorism (those who side with Palestinians)or to get cash from the USA to enforce their own security (those who side with Israel). Blaming this on Obama is just a bit too simplistic. There is enough blame to go around to many other countries, many of which should be more worried about helping the Palestinians as opposed to using them as pawns in some world-wide chessboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM

Apology accepted, Akenaton, but you still haven't answered my question about the British press...unless Sorcha's comment IS your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:16 PM

I'm sorry John.....I didn't mean to imply that you were insane.

But Mr Obama has been calling for a halt to building for some time, add to that his financing of drone warfare in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and he begins to look like a sheep in sheeps clothing.

Where is the CHANGE in foreign policy?   Was there ever any hope of CHANGE?....or was it all smoke and mirrors?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:01 PM

Mmm, considering the ferment of political change currently going on in Arab nations it's an interesting time for the US to be alienating itself from the rest of the world in respect of this key issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:57 PM

I shall visit my psychiatrist post-haste, but you haven't answered MY question yet.

I only know that the more settlements there are, the harder it will be to negotiate them away. Sorta like closing down long running government programs, here. It behooves, my opinion, the Palestinians to begin negotiations without preconditions...the sooner the better.

And, yes, Sorcha 'money talks' is the answer to every question for the Left (or the left, if you prefer).

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

The Palestinians and the Israelis have been 'negotiating' for years.
Every year more of the West Bank and Jerusalem are settled by Israelis and Palestinians lose title.

The Israelis have no intention of ever allowing a fully independent Palestine on the west bank (The Judea and Samaria areas of the Israeli administration). Settlements already cut the region almost in two near Jerusalem, are well-scattered over the region, and the Israelis are well on the way to complete control.
See map-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:49 PM

But surely all sane people see a halt to settlement building, as a pre-requisite for a Palistinian/ Israeli peace process?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:27 PM

Because MONEY talks John. Get that thru your thick head. MONEY runs this county, nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

And why, if any reason given, did UK press offer that explanation for the US veto?

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:17 PM

Why then was almost every other country in the UN in favour of the resolution.

UK press say US financial institutions pressurised Mr Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 04:46 PM

Ake & _itus:

As the Palestinians want to stop Israel settlement of what they consider their portion of Jerusalem, they should come to the peace table and negotiate for it, not make it a pre-condition for talks.

Obama was right to veto the resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 04:45 PM

You DO realize he vetoed it because it was an "our way or nothing" resolution, don't you?

There was no compromise at all offered. This is an OLD political trick of embedding really extreme damands in with some nice sounding ones, then complaining that "you don't really WANT peace!"
(The Republicans are using exactly the same tactics in our major financial bill right now...they added all sorts of amendments that will never pass the Senate, so thay can claim 'the Democrats are shutting down the government!')

Subject: RE: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 04:38 PM

Well Duh!

Subject: BS: Mr Obama veto's peace policy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM

A couple of years ago, Amos got on my case for stating "Mr Obama will provide only as much CHANGE as he is allowed to."

Well this week, Mr Obama has vetoed the Palistinian resolution which was placed before the UNSC demanding an end to Israeli settlement building on Palistinian land.

Mr Obama has said that he wants this illegal building stopped, but it seems that he has been pressurised into using the US veto against his will......Mr Obama is as I said, "a creature of the system"
There is no progressive movement.