< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7326 OF 7326 ·
|Sep-03-15|| ||Jim Bartle: <Once again, Mort goes 0-1 on the Rogoff page.>|
How do you know he wasn't playing black?
|Sep-03-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe: As usual, Mort only cuts and pastes things that support his narrow view of history.>|
What, like declassified US government documents?
|Sep-03-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <According to Kissinger's memoirs and his congressional testimony, Cuban meddling in Angola in 1975 was the trigger for the US intervention in that African country. But scholar Piero Gleijesis uncovered declassified documents showing that US forces intervened in Angola, in an effort coordinated with the apartheid government of South Africa, weeks before the arrival of any Cuban forces and made no reference to countering Cuba at the time.|
Gleijesis also found that Kissinger had the CIA rewrite a report to show an earlier Cuban presence, so that the written record would comport with the political aims of the administration.
In another case, documents declassified in 2001 demonstrated that President Gerald Ford and Kissinger gave a green light to Indonesian dictator Suharto for his invasion of East Timor in 1975, which resulted in the deaths of some 200,000 people. Kissinger had consistently and publicly denied doing so.>
"Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America"
By J. Patrice McSherry
You keep believing the lies from Washington if you want <HeMateMe> - I prefer to stick with the declassified documented evidence..
|Sep-03-15|| ||al wazir: <Colonel Mortimer: What do you mean by in my mind?> Sorry, I didn't express myself very clearly.|
Let's say that the so-called peace process actually leads to an agreement between the leaders of the two sides, on the terms I described. They sign it and ratify it. It's all kosher/halal according to international law.
But some of the Israelis aren't happy. They want to annex the *whole* West Bank, claiming it's theirs, guaranteed according to Scripture. And some of the Palestinians still call for return to what is now Israel, claiming that all of Palestine was theirs before the Zionists grabbed it.
So what's your take on the issues? Do you go along with that lawful agreement, or do you say the land is *still* occupied by the interloper Israelis? (I won't bother asking if you sympathize with the Zionists, although as I've depicted the two sides their positions are symmetric.)
|Sep-03-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <al wazir> <as I've depicted the two sides their positions are symmetric.>|
Really? Your claim of symmetry i.e. the right of return of Palestinian refugees as enshrined in international law versus the Israeli territorial claims <guaranteed according to Scripture>.
Your offering of this as 'symmetry' would suggest a state of parity on the legitimacy of these claims.
I didn't realise you put such faith in the historical accuracy of the bible. Fortunately international law doesn't and the Palestinian claim simply wins - as recognised by the international community and international law bodies.
Maybe if you asked me a straightforward question to further your knowledge, rather than just pretending that you are doing so while offering an overwrought scenario of a question in the hope that I fall into some rhetorical trap..
|Sep-04-15|| ||al wazir: <Colonel Mortimer>: You didn't mention the agreement, the treaty signed and sealed in accordance with international law. Read what I wrote again.|
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: What agreement other than an imaginary one? Why can't you deal with the reality of this issue?|
Pointless to discuss hypotheticals.
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: Especially when you introduce false equivalencies|
|Sep-04-15|| ||HeMateMe: mort, why don't you ever say anything bad about the KGB? Is it because you are a complete Americaphobe?|
|Sep-04-15|| ||al wazir: <Colonel Mortimer>: Straightforward question: Would you support that hypothetical treaty if some Palestinians (maybe many, or even most) didn't?|
|Sep-04-15|| ||al wazir: I think that question spotlights the essence of your hypocrisy. Despite having trumpeted your unshakable belief in the primacy of international law, you can't accept any agreement, even one that is 100% consistent with international law, if it doesn't give you what you want.|
|Sep-04-15|| ||al wazir: Or to put it another way, you always adopt a position opposing the U.S. in any international transaction it is involved in, and likewise for Israel. International law has nothing to do with it.|
|Sep-04-15|| ||Check It Out: I'm enjoying this exchange between <al wazir> and <Colonel Mortimer>. It's good to see you two talking again.|
It's tough to be on the colonialist side of the issue these days, eh?
|Sep-04-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <Suppose -- just suppose -- that the Palestinian government signed a treaty, accepted the Israelis' terms, agreed to the present lines of demarcation. All legal and proper according to international law. If all the legalities were observed, would the land be any less occupied in your mind?>|
I'm not entirely sure that any such treaty could ever be valid. This goes back to what the <Colonel> mentioned earlier about treaties between unequal partners.
Plainly, there is a heavy imbalance of power between the parties in Israel/Palestine. Equally plainly, a treaty making permanent the present lines of demarcation would constitute an enormous concession on the part of the Palestinians. This would be almost a prima facie case of agreement under color of coercion, and hence fully voidable at will.
Consider a lease between an individual tenant with little money and few options and a powerful landlord, in which the tenant "agrees" to accept substandard housing. Is such a lease valid? Very often, in practice, it would be allowed to stand because the tenant has no leverage and never challenges it, but if a competent attorney represented him, the first thing he'd do is ask the court to invalidate the lease.
An agreement between unequal parties is always suspect.
|Sep-04-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <al wazir: ...But in the past <Abdel Irada> has talked about his family from time to time. I may have missed it, but I have the impression that while he has mentioned his wife quite recently, he has not mentioned his daughter for quite a while. I hope everything is okay with her. But I can't help wondering about the hiatus. Is there some kind of estrangement? Maybe she doesn't buy into all the Islam crap?>|
Don't think I didn't see this, <al wazir>. Like most people, I examine comments from Coventry occasionally to ensure that I'm not being libeled. I didn't say anything yet, but that is because I was waiting to see what you'd do when <Colonel Mortimer> and <TheFocus> challenged you on it.
As I see it, there are three ways this can play out from here:
1) I could complain to the admins and ask that the post be removed.
I am not going to do this. It would deprive you of the opportunity to show what kind of person you are.
2) You could follow the <Colonel>'s advice: Take responsibility and have the admins delete the post yourself.
This is what a rational poster would do, certainly what a decent person would do. Will *you*?
I only note that so far, you haven't.
3) The post can remain forever, as a symbol of what depths you are willing to stoop to in order to score a rhetorical point in this forum.
Which will it be? The choice is in your hands.
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <al wazir: I think that question spotlights the essence of your hypocrisy.>|
Ok, so you think that.
<Despite having trumpeted your unshakable belief in the primacy of international law, you can't accept any agreement, even one that is 100% consistent with international law>
How did you draw that conclusion? What is it that I said that leads you to it?
I guess that if I ask you whether you have stopped beating your wife, I can draw conclusions without receiving an answer from you.
The conclusion being that you beat your wife.
So let's look at your question in detail, how you formulated it, and break it down objectively..
<al wazir> <Let's say that the so-called peace process actually leads to an agreement between the leaders of the two sides, on the terms I described.>
I assume you mean these terms..
<al wazir> <accepting the Israelis' terms and agreeing to the present lines of demarcation.>
Firstly, I don't understand why you would want to introduce a scenario based *only* on <accepting the Israeli terms>. Why not Palestinian terms as well? Or even better the terms of International law as per security council resolution 242?
Further, I'm not sure what you mean by <the present lines of demarcation>? Are you referencing the Israeli wall deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004? Are you referencing all illegal Israeli settlements as demarcated? Perhaps referencing all the areas that the Israeli Defence Force has under military jurisdiction? Or even referencing the Israeli only roads that criss-cross Palestinian land?
Lastly, your scenario also overlooks the question of whether Israel would be happy with the current 'demarcations'. Not much suggests they would, as they continue to build settlements on Palestinian lands..
Regardless - let's continue to run with the simplicity of your question. If everyone was a happy camper and that was due to the imagined agreement that you propose..I would be the first person to endorse the <al wazir> phantasmagorical peace plan.
<They sign it and ratify it. It's all kosher/halal according to international law.>
<According to international law> According to International Law, Israel is required to pull their troops out of the occupied Palestinian territories. But that's not what you proposed in your imagined agreement. Perhaps what you are asking is whether International Law can be abrogated when both parties are in agreement to do such a thing. I don't see why not, provided the agreement is made on an equitable basis without either party coercing the other.
<But some of the Israelis aren't happy. They want to annex the *whole* West Bank, claiming it's theirs, guaranteed according to Scripture. And some of the Palestinians still call for return to what is now Israel, claiming that all of Palestine was theirs before the Zionists grabbed it.>
If this happened, following your imagined agreement, then I suggest it would no longer be an agreement, would it? Perhaps a political agreement maybe, but not one representative of the peoples wishes, either on the Israeli side nor on the Palestinian side. Perhaps in that instant your suggested <100% consistent with international law> agreement would be anything but. One thing is clear though, International Law would not consider an Israeli claim based on God giving them the land..and why would International Law countenance such an absurd claim?
<So what's your take on the issues? Do you go along with that lawful agreement, or do you say the land is *still* occupied by the interloper Israelis?>
Not sure whether it would be <lawful> or not. But if all parties and the people they represent were happy with such an aggreement, I would be in favour. How likely do *you* think that would be? At the moment Israeli contracting parties aren't willing to follow UN security council resolution 242 on the matter so why would the Palestinian authorities accept even less than that?
Having spent some time thinking about and answering your question, I would like to think you could do the same with a question I asked of you a few days ago..
Do you believe the Palestinians have any right (any right you can think of), to resist the military occupation of their lands and their peoples?
You can qualify your response if you wish - I'm not a stickler for bare 'yes' or 'no' answers.
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe: mort, why don't you ever say anything bad about the KGB? Is it because you are a complete Americaphobe?>|
This is an American website, you are an American. Most of the topics on this site revolve around America and its powers of influence.
If I present you with declassified US government documents which counter your propagandist narrative about Cuba being the bad guy, what am I supposed to do?
Do you want me to agree with you and "make America great again"? Should I say "yeah those Cubans are dodgy" Is that the American way?
I would have thought a true American would be willing to stand up for truth, stand up against the lies of Washington politicians.
If being a real American means being racist, xenophobic, blaming other countries, launching wars of aggression - and having to agree with those actions, what does that say about you <HeMateMe>?
I don't hate Americans, but I'm fully against the policies of unintended consequences or otherwise emanating out of Washington.
Maybe you feel you have to support these, however misguided they may be - but that is not a problem I have.
|Sep-04-15|| ||ljfyffe: <wazir><adopt a position opposing the US> When the goal of a peace process is defined by the US as the achievement of the outcome that the US administration wants in its interests to be achieved, without any reference to the
strivings of others involved in the peace process,
of course, the taking any other position will be considered adopting a position opposing that of the US
How else could it be considered?
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <ljfyffe: <wazir><adopt a position opposing the US> When the goal of a peace process is defined by the US as the achievement of the outcome that the US administration wants in its interests to be achieved, without any reference to the strivings of others involved in the peace process,
of course, the taking any other position will be considered adopting a position opposing that of the US How else could it be considered?>|
It also calls into question the 'ethical' supremacy of victors in war, and generally on whether the application of power is ethically legitimate of it self.
Some might argue that "might is right" and point to nature - the cheetah kills the antelope etc..But is that a valid argument for humanity? Do we have brains, language, cognition etc only to squander these abilities by imitating animals in the wild that don't have the same degree of social sophistication?
Are we sophisticated animals or animalistic sophisticates?
I think these questions are answered simply - if you have a brain, use it <HeMateMe>.
|Sep-04-15|| ||HeMateMe: <An agreement between unequal parties is always suspect.>|
Thus, abdel feels that there is no need to reach any sort of agreements with the American Indian tribes, in the USA. Somewhat simplistic thinking, in my opinion.
Mort, you spend every minute attacking every bad moment the USA government has ever had, like some sort of village idiot bent on one simple task. The reason I call you out on not criticizing other countries is because so much of the USA history in the 20th century is in fact based on helping other people and checking large entities like the USSR and the smaller nut groups like Hezbollah and the PLO, some of them funded by Iran, Libya, and places like that. You look for the tiniest details where something was done wrong by the USA, but never accept the larger picture, that there is usually a greater good in what we do.
The same things you blame the USA for are the kinds of things that England and France have done, when they were preeminent world powers. You claim to have heritage in both of those camps, yet never talk about the past shortcomings of England and France, or the current problems created by Putin or the undemocratic, repressive China.
That's why I think you're a clown, and don't often respond to your posts. Your one track focus (the Village Idiot) precludes you from seeing the events surrounding the actions you yap about. You refuse to see the big picture, because it doesn't fit in with your narrow view of the USA.
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe:> Has the USA done anything bad?|
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: Except for the <the tiniest details where something was done wrong by the USA>|
|Sep-04-15|| ||HeMateMe: Yep. Most countries with power and influence have. The difference between you and me is that I talk about both sides of the equation.|
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: You see, I'm looking for balance <HeMateMe>. I don't doubt your ability to furiously wave the stars & stripes.|
But I do doubt your ability to be objective.
For example, you have never criticised the US invasion of Iraq. That's just one instance (and not the only one) of Washington blundering overseas, spilling its blood and treasure - yet somehow you are committed to the idea this was good for America, and heavens above, good for Iraq.
This and your unstinting support for the lies coming out of Washington, is perhaps one of the many reasons why you are largely regarded as an unobjective ass on this forum by your fellow Americans to say the least..
|Sep-04-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe> And when you barged in on a relatively civilised discussion on Guatanomo, by justifying the US occupation of that part of Cuba, saying Cuba couldn't be trusted and they had invaded Angola, you completely ignored the fact that the US had already intervened in Angola, in cahoots with Apartheid South Africa, long before even one Cuban soldier had set foot..|
Total bias, complete idiocy, and an unfettered commitment to the wrongdoings of Washington - yep that's you <HeMateMe>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7326 OF 7326 ·