Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    05 Feb '16 03:36
    Originally posted by vivify
    Are there any westernized nations that may arguably be hated around the world than the U.S.? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested to know. Around the world, the U.S. is despised. So are there any westernized (or industrialized) nations that we can truly say, "yes, they're hated more than America"?

    Excluding Israel, of course.
    Haters gonna hate.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    05 Feb '16 04:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What country does? None.

    Israel is the only country right now that is occupying territory gained by conquest after the UN Charter came into effect and denying the People in that territory the same rights as the rest of its citizens. It's crimes are a cause of Islamist extremism and support for them hardly creates a "bulwark".
    There's China's ongoing occupation of Tibet, I don't know the timing relative to the Charter.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Feb '16 19:38
    Originally posted by DeepThought to No1Marauder
    There's China's ongoing occupation of Tibet, I don't know the timing relative to the Charter.
    While Tibet had de facto independence during periods when China was unable to exercise
    its authority on account of both civil war in China and Japan's invasion(s) of China,
    Tibet never had international recognition as an independent country or sovereign state.
    In the 1940s, this specific question was addressed (by the UK) to the United States.
    The UK (which loathed Chinese nationalism for possibly encouraging Indian nationalism)
    hoped to detach Tibet from China and add it as a 'protectorate' to the British Empire, but
    the USA declined to go along. At that time, the USA's position was that Tibet remained
    under the sovereignty of China (which then was led by Chiang Kai-shek, a US ally).
    The USA accepted that China's de facto loss of control over Tibet--on account of war--did
    *not* mean that China must lose its sovereignty over Tibet. (When European countries
    were occupied by the Third Reich, did they lose their sovereignty over their possessions?)

    The People's Republic of China's position (as I understand it) is that, as a successor state
    to the Republic of China (which still exists, however, on Taiwan), it inherits all the rights
    of its predecessor, including sovereignty over Tibet (which the USA has recognized).
    For whatever it's worth, Taiwan's government also takes the position that Tibet belongs
    to China, though it differs with Beijing about who should be governing all of China.

    Tibetan nationalists were allied (though it did not amount to much practically) with Japan
    against China. (As I recall, the Dalai Lama has said that, in his youth, his sympathies were
    completely with Japan, which he regarded as fighting a righteous *defensive* war against China.)
    Given the nearly genocidal nature of Japan's aggression in China, modern Chinese find
    it hard 'to forgive and forget' about Tibetan nationalists' approval of the Japanese invasion.
    Western general indifference toward Japanese war crimes in China is already known in China.

    I know that the Western media nearly always uncritically accepts Tibetan nationalists' claims,
    many of which are misleading, exaggerated, or uncorroborated and some of which are simply false.
    In my view, neither China's government nor Tibetan nationalists should be trusted to provide
    objective facts about the situation in Tibet.
  4. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    05 Feb '16 19:41
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There's China's ongoing occupation of Tibet, I don't know the timing relative to the Charter.
    China seems to tacitly accept the UNs rulings, on several Islands including Taiwan, which they consider theirs. Perhaps they just consider the gains to be minor compared to the possible costs.

    On the other hand, Israel's takings have all occurred after some enemy has taken aggressive action toward them, and they've kept the land taken in the fight, which has been pretty common practice among nations at war, unless the land was worthless.

    Among the Arab nations surrounding Israel, nothing short of every Jew dead is acceptable. The problem, obvious to any unbiased source is that from time to time one of Israel's neighbor thinks they see weakness, and decide to give it a try.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    05 Feb '16 19:571 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    China seems to tacitly accept the UNs rulings, on several Islands including Taiwan, which they consider theirs. Perhaps they just consider the gains to be minor compared to the possible costs.

    On the other hand, Israel's takings have all occurred after some enemy has taken aggressive action toward them, and they've kept the land taken in the fight, wh ...[text shortened]... rom time to time one of Israel's neighbor thinks they see weakness, and decide to give it a try.
    I know this is useless BUT:

    Acquisition of territory by conquest is banned in the UN Charter. UN Resolution 242 adopted a few months after the Israeli attack specifically states:

    Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    What was "common practice" beforehand is irrelevant.

    norm: Among the Arab nations surrounding Israel, nothing short of every Jew dead is acceptable.

    This is demented nonsense. In fact, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and the Palestinians have accepted the principle of a two State solution for over 20 years.

    Israel is the one who attacked in 1967; other nations did not "decide to give it a try", they did (as they did in 1956 and on many other occasions). While Israeli apologists continue to claim that their sneak attack was in "self-defense", even Israeli leaders have admitted that it was a war of choice.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    05 Feb '16 20:03
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There's China's ongoing occupation of Tibet, I don't know the timing relative to the Charter.
    Besides the obvious fact that neither the PRC nor Tibet was a member of the UN, there is considerable question whether the British protectorate established over Tibet was anything more than aggressive colonialism which the PRC had a legitimate power to rectify.

    That would make the situation more in line with India's occupation of Gao in 1961. By contrast, modern Israel never exercised any sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza until their invasion in June 1967.
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Feb '16 20:06
    [i]Originally posted by no1marauder to Normbenign/i]
    I know this is useless BUT:

    Acquisition of territory by conquest is banned in the UN Charter. What was "common practice" beforehand is irrelevant.

    norm: Among the Arab nations surrounding Israel, nothing short of every Jew dead is acceptable.

    This is demented nonsense.

    Israel is the one who attacked in 1967; other nations did n ...[text shortened]... ak attack was in "self-defense", even Israeli leaders have admitted that it was a war of choice.
    Contrary to Normbenign's usual hysterical nonsense, there's no evidence whatsoever
    that Arab nations have attempted to commit genocide against their Jewish minorities.
    Indeed, a few Jews even serve as officers in some Arab armed forces (e.g. Morocco's).
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Feb '16 18:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Contrary to Normbenign's usual hysterical nonsense, there's no evidence whatsoever
    that Arab nations have attempted to commit genocide against their Jewish minorities.
    Indeed, a few Jews even serve as officers in some Arab armed forces (e.g. Morocco's).
    And THAT'S why Jews were targets of the Inquisition. They help the Moors!
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    07 Feb '16 20:09
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Contrary to Normbenign's usual hysterical nonsense, there's no evidence whatsoever
    that Arab nations have attempted to commit genocide against their Jewish minorities.
    Indeed, a few Jews even serve as officers in some Arab armed forces (e.g. Morocco's).
    Oh hell yeah outside Morocco the jews are doing really swell all through the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, they are happy as pigs in chit, just like Christians are.
    Islam is an open and care free religion, very respectful of other religious philosophies.....when they aren't cutting the heads off of infidels that don't follow mohammed.
    Lower case "m" on mohammed was intentional.
    Hope I don't get hunted down and killed for it.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Feb '16 20:551 edit
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Oh hell yeah outside Morocco the jews are doing really swell all through the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, they are happy as pigs in chit, just like Christians are.
    Islam is an open and care free religion, very respectful of other religious philosophies.....when they aren't cutting the heads off of infidels that don't follow mohammed.
    Lower case "m" on mohammed was intentional.
    Hope I don't get hunted down and killed for it.
    Avi Shlaim is an Israeli Jewish historian whose Jewish parents came from Iraq to Israel.
    He has written that his parents were very nostalgic about their past lives in Iraq.
    Until 1948 (when the state of Israel was founded) Jews experienced no serious problems
    being accepted, even welcomed, in Iraq. After 1948, Iraqi Jews fell increasingly under
    suspicion, however, because Israel claimed to represent all Jews in the Middle East.
    Israel claimed that every Jew;s ultimate loyalty should be to Israel rather than to the
    Arab societies in which they still lived. Israel urged every Jew to 'come home' to Israel.
    So Zionism 'poisoned the well' of the historical general acceptance of Jews in Iraq.

    As I recall, Israel conducted some 'false flag' operations in order to provoke Jews living
    in Arab societies 'to flee' to Israel. Israeli agents launched 'terrorist attacks' (not aiming
    to kill many civilians, but just enough to create a panic) against Jewish targets in Arab societies.
    Then Israeli propaganda would smugly proclaim: "We told you so. What happened proves
    that Jews are unsafe among the Arabs, So now's the time for you to come home to Israel!"
    I suppose that Israel rationalized any casualties among Jewish civilians in Arab societies
    upon the basis that Israel had acted for 'the greater good of the Jewish people'.
    It was better to sacrifice a few Jewish lives, if necessary, in order to motivate many more
    Jews to emigrate from Arab societies to Israel. Israel needed more Jews to fight its wars.
  11. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45749
    07 Feb '16 22:02
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Lower case "m" on mohammed was intentional.
    Hope I don't get hunted down and killed for it.
    Poor grammar is inexcusable but not a hanging offence (unfortunately).
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Feb '16 22:26
    Originally posted by wolfgang59 to FishHead111
    Poor grammar is inexcusable but not a hanging offence (unfortunately).
    The nearly illiterate Normbenign and Phil3000 should be most grateful.
  13. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    07 Feb '16 23:17
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I know this is useless BUT:

    Acquisition of territory by conquest is banned in the UN Charter. UN Resolution 242 adopted a few months after the Israeli attack specifically states:

    Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Withdrawal o ...[text shortened]... ak attack was in "self-defense", even Israeli leaders have admitted that it was a war of choice.
    The UN is a useless bureaucracy made up largely of predator nations, and the charter has no real authority.

    So called "sneak attacks" are often initiated knowing an attack is brewing, and that striking first gains an advantage. Perhaps eventually Israel's neighbors will all recognize its right to exist, and stop actions like sending in suicide bombers, and shooting rockets into Israeli territory. Until that time, I support the right of Israel to aggressively defend herself.
  14. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    07 Feb '16 23:19
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The nearly illiterate Normbenign and Phil3000 should be most grateful.
    Poor grammar may evidence illiteracy, but absolute foolishness and idiocy in posting confirms it, and Duchess64 is a confirmed illiterate tool.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45749
    08 Feb '16 10:28
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The UN is a useless bureaucracy made up largely of predator nations, and the charter has no real authority.

    "predator nations"?

    Surely "predatory nations" is more correct
    or
    the hip "predator-nations".

    But apart from the grammar, your post implies that the majority
    of the nations of the world are "predator nations'[sic] . So is that
    the norm? And where does the US fit on the scale of "predator nations" ?
    Top 100?
    Top 10?
    Numero Uno?
Back to Top