What's new

The US tells the UN to go to hell when questioned about lands it conquered during wartime

Solomon2

BANNED
Dec 12, 2008
19,475
-37
9,951
Country
United States
Location
United States
new%2Beoz%2Blogo%2B4.png


  • Wednesday, December 28, 2016
  • user.png
    Elder of Ziyon
The US tells the UN to go to hell when questioned about lands it conquered during wartime




Analogies are never perfect, but they can still be illuminating.

Let's talk about Guam.

Spain originally colonized the island in the 16th century. The US captured the island in 1898 during the Spanish American War. (There was no battle, the island's residents had no idea they were at war with the US and surrendered.)

Since then, the US has controlled the island. it remains today an unincorporated territory of the United States, where the residents do not enjoy constitutional protection.

The United Nations includes Guam in its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and it has expended efforts to decolonize Guam along with the other remaining colonized lands worldwide.

Among the annual UN demands of the US concerning Guam is:

Called once again upon the administering Power to take into consideration the expressed will of the Chamorro people as supported by Guam voters in the referendum of 1987 and as subsequently provided for in Guam law regarding Chamorro self-determination efforts, encouraged the administering Power and the territorial Government to enter into negotiations on the matter, and stressed the need for continued close monitoring of the overall situation in the Territory;

Here is how the US responds to the UN demands for self-determination in Guam:

In a letter dated 2 November 2006 addressed to the delegate of American Samoa to the United States House of Representatives, the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs elaborated on the position of the Government of the United States. He indicated that the status of the insular areas regarding their political relations with the federal Government was an internal United States issue, and not one that came within the purview of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. He also noted that the Special Committee had no authority to alter in any way the relationship between the United States and those territories and had no mandate to engage the United States in negotiations on their status.

In other words, when the UN wants to help the residents of Guam to achieve self-determination, the US tells the UN to go to hell.

No protests, no BDS.. The US can act with impunity towards the residents of Guam and keep the island as a colony despite UN attempts to work towards more independence.

It is instructive to see that even democratic nations tell the UN to drop dead when it is in their interests to do so.

(h/t Irene)
 
Lol .. So now the Zionists are moaning and blaming US for not vetoing UNs decision ? :lol:

Solomon will you now bycott USA,US mil and civilian aid in protests for not supporting your illegal actions ?
 
new%2Beoz%2Blogo%2B4.png


  • Wednesday, December 28, 2016
  • user.png
    Elder of Ziyon
The US tells the UN to go to hell when questioned about lands it conquered during wartime




Analogies are never perfect, but they can still be illuminating.

Let's talk about Guam.

Spain originally colonized the island in the 16th century. The US captured the island in 1898 during the Spanish American War. (There was no battle, the island's residents had no idea they were at war with the US and surrendered.)

Since then, the US has controlled the island. it remains today an unincorporated territory of the United States, where the residents do not enjoy constitutional protection.

The United Nations includes Guam in its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and it has expended efforts to decolonize Guam along with the other remaining colonized lands worldwide.

Among the annual UN demands of the US concerning Guam is:

Called once again upon the administering Power to take into consideration the expressed will of the Chamorro people as supported by Guam voters in the referendum of 1987 and as subsequently provided for in Guam law regarding Chamorro self-determination efforts, encouraged the administering Power and the territorial Government to enter into negotiations on the matter, and stressed the need for continued close monitoring of the overall situation in the Territory;

Here is how the US responds to the UN demands for self-determination in Guam:

In a letter dated 2 November 2006 addressed to the delegate of American Samoa to the United States House of Representatives, the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs elaborated on the position of the Government of the United States. He indicated that the status of the insular areas regarding their political relations with the federal Government was an internal United States issue, and not one that came within the purview of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. He also noted that the Special Committee had no authority to alter in any way the relationship between the United States and those territories and had no mandate to engage the United States in negotiations on their status.

In other words, when the UN wants to help the residents of Guam to achieve self-determination, the US tells the UN to go to hell.

No protests, no BDS.. The US can act with impunity towards the residents of Guam and keep the island as a colony despite UN attempts to work towards more independence.

It is instructive to see that even democratic nations tell the UN to drop dead when it is in their interests to do so.

(h/t Irene)

AFAIK, there are no treaties in effect that requires the US to give independence to Guam.
International Law has changed a lot since the Spanish American war, so event occuring before
the Geneva Convention and events occuring after the Geneva Convention should not be compared.
 
MY "illegal actions"?

Apart from your pathetic attempts to defend the illegal actions of Israel .. Yes don't you represent the Israeli state more than US? Considering how you after the UNs snub are now shamelessly pointing towards US relations to its territories in order to pathetically justify Israels illegal occupation of Palestine ?
 
Lol .. So now the Zionists are moaning and blaming US for not vetoing UNs decision ? :lol:

Solomon will you now bycott USA,US mil and civilian aid in protests for not supporting your illegal actions ?
no, they will ask for more aid and free military hardware..
 
...International Law has changed a lot since the Spanish American war, so event occuring before the Geneva Convention and events occuring after the Geneva Convention should not be compared.
One event occurring before the Geneva Convention is the League of Nations' Mandate of Palestine, encouraging the Jews to "closely settle" the territory, demanding Arabs not sacrifice Jews' civil and property rights in any part of the formerly-Ottoman Middle East. Another pre-Geneva (IV ) event is the U.N. Charter and by Article 80 the decrees of the U.N. cannot be used to strip the Jews of this Mandate.

.. Yes don't you represent the Israeli state more than US?
Obama represents only himself and a pathetic minority now. A "normal" Administration would not seek to undertake new initiatives in opposition to an incoming Administration during its "caretaker" period.

Considering how you after the UNs snub are now shamelessly -
I have NOTHING to be ashamed of. Israel's actions are legal; they are merely CALLED illegal. Obama might as well have accused Netanyahu's mother of wearing combat boots.

On the other hand, many other countries don't have as clean a record of Israel when it comes to laws and deeds and humane conduct. To many of these Israel is merely the useful scapegoat. How many Pakistanis here jump on Israel rather than pay attention to the misdeeds of their own leaders?
 
Lol .. So now the Zionists are moaning and blaming US for not vetoing UNs decision ? :lol:

Solomon will you now bycott USA,US mil and civilian aid in protests for not supporting your illegal actions ?

Will the zionists boycott the billions of dollars they squeeze out of the Americans? :omghaha:
 
One event occurring before the Geneva Convention is the League of Nations' Mandate of Palestine, encouraging the Jews to "closely settle" the territory, demanding Arabs not sacrifice Jews' civil and property rights in any part of the formerly-Ottoman Middle East. Another pre-Geneva (IV ) event is the U.N. Charter and by Article 80 the decrees of the U.N. cannot be used to strip the Jews of this Mandate.

Obama represents only himself and a pathetic minority now. A "normal" Administration would not seek to undertake new initiatives in opposition to an incoming Administration during its "caretaker" period.

I have NOTHING to be ashamed of. Israel's actions are legal; they are merely CALLED illegal. Obama might as well have accused Netanyahu's mother of wearing combat boots.

On the other hand, many other countries don't have as clean a record of Israel when it comes to laws and deeds and humane conduct. To many of these Israel is merely the useful scapegoat. How many Pakistanis here jump on Israel rather than pay attention to the misdeeds of their own leaders?
The league of Nations awarded the British a mandate to govern Palestine according to a set of rules,
and they have backed away, so I doubt it has any legal value today.
Legality of acts happening during the mandate must of course be determined by the laws that were in force at that time.
Article 80 speaks of trustee territories, and while the full chapter is applicable to mandates,
there has to be a decision that an area becomes a trustee territory, and that never happened for the mandate.

As I have pointed out many times before, international law is not advanced enough to ensure that
the area ends up with a fair solution.
This would involve a two state solution where both states respects each other.
Nothing indicates that Palestinians intend to respect Israel if a Palestinian state is created,
and nothing indicates that the current government of Israel is prepared to allow the creation of a second state.
 
The league of Nations awarded the British a mandate to govern Palestine according to a set of rules,
and they have backed away, so I doubt it has any legal value today.
The Brits were a trustee. Trusteeships don't end when the trustee pulls out.

Article 80 speaks of trustee territories, and while the full chapter is applicable to mandates,
there has to be a decision -
"There has to be a decision"? Where does that come from? More on Article 80 here: link.

As I have pointed out many times before, international law is not advanced enough to ensure that
the area ends up with a fair solution. This would involve a two state solution where both states respects each other.
Laws are only advanced enough when they realize a predetermined result? I don't think so.

Nothing indicates that Palestinians intend to respect Israel if a Palestinian state is created,
and nothing indicates that the current government of Israel is prepared to allow the creation of a second state.
Third state: Jordan was carved from 70% of the Mandate and the Zionist leadership acquiesced to it. Then the Husseins illegally kicked out the Jews and seized their property to reward their followers and thus secure their rule. And "the world" did nothing then, because, you know, Jews. So what confidence should Israel have in "the world" now?
 
...don't you represent the Israeli state more than US? ..
Perhaps I represent the U.S. more than Obama does at the moment:
stacked-logo.png


Congress Moving to Cut U.S. Funding to U.N. in Wake of Anti-Israel Vote
Cruz: Obama plotting further action against Israel

The U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Israel for establishing settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In a striking rupture with past practice, the U.S. allowed the vote / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
December 28, 2016 5:00 am


Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.

Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.

The Obama administration is still under bipartisan attack for its decision to help craft and facilitate the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem, a move that reversed years of U.S. policy on the matter.

The Free Beacon was the first to disclose on Monday that senior Obama administration officials played a key role in ensuring the measure was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. This included a phone call by Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the measure.

While Biden’s office continues to dispute the claim, reporters in Israel and Europe confirmed in the intervening days that the call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko did in fact take place.

With anger over the issue still roiling, leading members of Congress told the Free Beacon on Wednesday that they will not delay in seeking retribution against the U.N. for the vote. This could include cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N. and stripping the Palestinian mission’s diplomatic privileges.

Lawmakers also will work to rebuff further attempts by the Obama administration to chastise Israel on the international stage. This would include freezing funds that could be spent by the administration on further U.N. action.

“The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) told the Free Beacon. “President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power, and their colleagues should remember that the United States Congress reconvenes on January 3rd, and under the Constitution we control the taxpayer funds they would use for their anti-Israel initiatives.”

“The 115th Congress must stop the current administration’s vicious attack on our great ally Israel, and address the major priorities of the incoming administration,” Cruz said, expressing his desire to work with the incoming Trump administration to reset the U.S. relationship with Israel.< Senior congressional sources currently working on the issue further disclosed to the Free Beacon that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are in an uproar over the Obama administration, which they accuse of plotting behind closed doors to smear Israel.

“Not content with spending the last eight years using the United Nations to undermine American sovereignty, the Obama administration has finally trained their sights on Israel and is trying to exploit this unelected and unaccountable international body to impose their resolution of the Palestinian issue on Israel,” one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon. “Enough is enough.”

While the Trump administration will not take office until the end of January, Congress will be working overtime before then to stop the Obama administration from further damaging the U.S.-Israel relationship, according to the source, who hinted that a full cut-off of U.S. funding to the U.N. currently is on the table.

“A new administration will arrive on January 20th, but in the intervening weeks Congress has an important role mitigating the damage President Obama can do in his final hours,” the source said. “Why on earth would we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad in support of the UN, which has proven itself again and again utterly unable to encourage any positive progress? Just take Syria — if they were doing anything over the last five years, it should have been working out a fair and equitable adjudication of the Syrian war.”

“Instead, they’ve proven themselves utterly useless–in fact they’ve probably made a gut-wrenching catastrophe worse,” the source explained. “There’s no reason to think this action will turn out any more favorably.”

A second senior congressional aide working on a package of repercussions expressed fear that the U.N. vote was just the first salvo targeting Israel.

“The question now is whether this was the finale or the prologue of what this administration has planned against Israel,” the source said, adding that “everything is on the table right now — including funding cuts and scaling back diplomatic relations with countries that brought forward this resolution.”

A similar list of punitive actions was confirmed by multiple congressional sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter. The sources were granted anonymity so they could speak freely.

“Obama went to the U.N. because a U.N. resolution is functionally irreversible by normal means,” added a veteran foreign policy insider who is currently working with the incoming Trump administration. “Obama’s goal was to eliminate any limited options that could be used to repair the damage to Israel, and he gambled that Trump and Congress would be too intimidated to use the remaining big stick options. He’s going to lose that gamble.”

“American leaders will now use exactly those options,” the source explained. “Everything is on the table, from systematically going after the U.N., to moving the U.S. embassy into parts of Jerusalem the U.N. says aren’t Israeli, to kicking the Palestinians out of Washington.”

“Members on both sides of the aisle are furious, so our response will be swift and forceful,” the second congressional source said. “With a Trump administration in place, any nation that seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state will need to answer to the United States.”
 
Perhaps I represent the U.S. more than Obama does at the moment:
stacked-logo.png


Congress Moving to Cut U.S. Funding to U.N. in Wake of Anti-Israel Vote
Cruz: Obama plotting further action against Israel

The U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Israel for establishing settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In a striking rupture with past practice, the U.S. allowed the vote / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
December 28, 2016 5:00 am


Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.

Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.

The Obama administration is still under bipartisan attack for its decision to help craft and facilitate the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem, a move that reversed years of U.S. policy on the matter.

The Free Beacon was the first to disclose on Monday that senior Obama administration officials played a key role in ensuring the measure was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. This included a phone call by Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the measure.

While Biden’s office continues to dispute the claim, reporters in Israel and Europe confirmed in the intervening days that the call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko did in fact take place.

With anger over the issue still roiling, leading members of Congress told the Free Beacon on Wednesday that they will not delay in seeking retribution against the U.N. for the vote. This could include cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N. and stripping the Palestinian mission’s diplomatic privileges.

Lawmakers also will work to rebuff further attempts by the Obama administration to chastise Israel on the international stage. This would include freezing funds that could be spent by the administration on further U.N. action.

“The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) told the Free Beacon. “President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power, and their colleagues should remember that the United States Congress reconvenes on January 3rd, and under the Constitution we control the taxpayer funds they would use for their anti-Israel initiatives.”

“The 115th Congress must stop the current administration’s vicious attack on our great ally Israel, and address the major priorities of the incoming administration,” Cruz said, expressing his desire to work with the incoming Trump administration to reset the U.S. relationship with Israel.< Senior congressional sources currently working on the issue further disclosed to the Free Beacon that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are in an uproar over the Obama administration, which they accuse of plotting behind closed doors to smear Israel.

“Not content with spending the last eight years using the United Nations to undermine American sovereignty, the Obama administration has finally trained their sights on Israel and is trying to exploit this unelected and unaccountable international body to impose their resolution of the Palestinian issue on Israel,” one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon. “Enough is enough.”

While the Trump administration will not take office until the end of January, Congress will be working overtime before then to stop the Obama administration from further damaging the U.S.-Israel relationship, according to the source, who hinted that a full cut-off of U.S. funding to the U.N. currently is on the table.

“A new administration will arrive on January 20th, but in the intervening weeks Congress has an important role mitigating the damage President Obama can do in his final hours,” the source said. “Why on earth would we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad in support of the UN, which has proven itself again and again utterly unable to encourage any positive progress? Just take Syria — if they were doing anything over the last five years, it should have been working out a fair and equitable adjudication of the Syrian war.”

“Instead, they’ve proven themselves utterly useless–in fact they’ve probably made a gut-wrenching catastrophe worse,” the source explained. “There’s no reason to think this action will turn out any more favorably.”

A second senior congressional aide working on a package of repercussions expressed fear that the U.N. vote was just the first salvo targeting Israel.

“The question now is whether this was the finale or the prologue of what this administration has planned against Israel,” the source said, adding that “everything is on the table right now — including funding cuts and scaling back diplomatic relations with countries that brought forward this resolution.”

A similar list of punitive actions was confirmed by multiple congressional sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter. The sources were granted anonymity so they could speak freely.

“Obama went to the U.N. because a U.N. resolution is functionally irreversible by normal means,” added a veteran foreign policy insider who is currently working with the incoming Trump administration. “Obama’s goal was to eliminate any limited options that could be used to repair the damage to Israel, and he gambled that Trump and Congress would be too intimidated to use the remaining big stick options. He’s going to lose that gamble.”

“American leaders will now use exactly those options,” the source explained. “Everything is on the table, from systematically going after the U.N., to moving the U.S. embassy into parts of Jerusalem the U.N. says aren’t Israeli, to kicking the Palestinians out of Washington.”

“Members on both sides of the aisle are furious, so our response will be swift and forceful,” the second congressional source said. “With a Trump administration in place, any nation that seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state will need to answer to the United States.”

How have democrats reacted to this Obama's move in UN ? Have yet to see any democrat making any statement post UN resolution.
 
How have democrats reacted to this Obama's move in UN ? Have yet to see any democrat making any statement post UN resolution.
You didn't see an immediate reaction because Obama struck on a Friday evening and the day before the Jewish and Christian holidays, when Congress was out of session and many reporters out of town. So far one Democratic congressman, Stenny Hoyer, flat-out told Obama to shut up. Other reactions will come in soon, I think.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom