Well, you seem to keep missing the point here: England is not “the WASP”. England is the country of its citizens who may or may not be WASP or Arabs or or Jews. One of my buddies at work is an Englishman who immigrated there from Jamaica. If he immigrated to Israel, he’d become an Israeli, but not a Jew.

Again, I am not really interested in analysing your apparent fixation on ethnicity of some of the Israeli citizens.

And your 1337 logic skilz need some honing. You can’t say in comment 76 that the UN rules don’t apply to the security council and then in comment 80 agree with me that the rules do only seem to apply to the security council and the countries like them. Usually people make it a point of mentioning when they’ve changed their mind. You just seem to believe both to be true at the same time.

Oh, and calling someone an “ignorant bigoted redneck” would imply you hold some bigotry of your own, at least against rednecks.

Btw, recently you’ve been more unpleasant than usual, Jet. Calling Israeli government ‘the Jews’ (like some ignorant bigoted redneck) doesn’t earn you any points here, you know. If you want to have this kind of discussion, go to the LGF.

Except for the 5 super-countries, permanent members of the SC who have the veto power, of course. They are above the law.

You’ve actually got it all backwards. The UN really only has power over democracies that give two shits about the UN. It’s only in countries like the US, UK, France, Western Europe, etc that would like to see the UN work where the UN has any power. Marx would have seen this clear as day, why can’t you? Or did all that UN action against Iran prove me wrong?

I nominate Ben Shapiro for sacrifice, to see if that helps.

Except for the 5 super-countries, permanent members of the SC who have the veto power, of course. They are above the law.

The UN as a concept works great.

The UN as a practical matter is basically worthless and should really not be trusted.

I see Israel as an ethnic racist expansionist state, the worst violator of the international law in the post-WWII history.

Is it not in your version of facts that Fallujah was mostly destroyed with thousands of civilians killed, or that it was a city of over 200,000 people?

There are about 10,000 fully documented Iraqi civilan killed by the coalition vs. the total of 5,000 corpses found so far in Saddam-period mass-graves. These are the facts.

Give me your facts, let’s dish it out.

The thing I like about abb1 is that he is essentially honest and rational – he believes the versions of the facts that are necessary in order to support his political views.

Cleverer people generally avoid making things so explicit, avoid revealing what facts or expectations underly their views. That way, no fear of them being contradicted.

soru

Plenty of countries don’t control all their territory, in ways much more meaningful than ‘some people are able to sneak in and plant bombs’.

American rule is not going to be ‘toppled’, with the rebels holding the head of the US ambassador on a pole, his guards stripping off their uniforms and melting into the crowd.

The americans may, in time, choose to ‘go home’, under fire or not, which is not an option available to local rulers.

Alternatively, if they stay too long, a mass demonstration, a million people strong or more, will present them the option of massacring the crowd (probably on TV), or leaving.

Try that demonstration against Saddam and he would have said ‘what, so many of my enemies in one place, and unarmed? You are spoiling me’.

soru