What's new

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

Lmao I swear some Americans care more about Israel than their own country.
Appeasing the enemies of freedom and democracy simply leads to more terrorism at home. 9/11 took place in the context of dozens of Arab suicide attacks throughout Israel. Arafat was shocked, even dismayed, for he saw Osama bin Laden as a competitor for leadership: link.
 
Appeasing the enemies of freedom and democracy simply leads to more terrorism at home. 9/11 took place in the context of dozens of Arab suicide attacks throughout Israel. Arafat was shocked, even dismayed, for he saw Osama bin Laden as a competitor for leadership: link.
Why did your govt consistently appeased Pakistan then? get a grip.
 
Why did your govt consistently appeased Pakistan then? get a grip.
Look at matters from the U.S. point of view: it was Pakistan's General Zia who suppressed the PLO in 1970, Pakistan's ambassador Sahabzada Yaqub-Khan who in 1977 talked the murderous "Hanafi" Muslim terrorists into surrender in D.C., and Pakistan which successfully managed the anti-Soviet insurgency in the 1980s. So for a long time U.S. policymakers probably thought that Pakistani leaders knew more about suppressing terrorism than the U.S. did.

Of course, India has different views on the matter. But for many years India held itself to be an opponent of the U.S. diplomatically and in international organizations. The 1971 war and Indira's threat to invade West Pakistan did not help India's efforts to make Pakistan out as the greater villain.
 
Last edited:
Look at matters from the U.S. point of view: it was Pakistan's General Zia who suppressed the PLO in 1971, Pakistan's ambassador Sahabzada Yaqub-Khan who in 1977 talked the murderous "Hanafi" Muslim terrorists into surrender, and Pakistan who successfully managed the anti-Soviet insurgency in the 1980s. So for a long time U.S. policymakers probably thought that Pakistani leaders knew more about suppressing terrorism than the U.S. did.

Of course, India has different views on the matter. But for many years India held itself to be an opponent of the U.S. diplomatically and in international organizations. The 1971 war and Indira's threat to invade West Pakistan did not help its efforts to make Pakistan out as the greater villain.
US supported Pakistan way before 71 and you know that very well.
 
US supported Pakistan way before 71 and you know that very well.
Oh, yes. But India gave the cold shoulder to the U.S. long before that. Even so, U.S. support of Pakistan got a lot colder after the 1965 war, as the U.S. considered Pakistan 100% at fault. If India had not insisted afterwards on hostility towards the U.S., or if it had moved further away from the Soviet Union, things might have worked out differently.
 
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.”
Its not US president , last time Bush veto on certain ground and promises Israel made. But , Israel fail to comply those promises made to US administration at that time. This expansion was also part of that package deal.
 
Its not US president , last time Bush veto on certain ground and certain promises Israel made. But , Israel fail to comply those promises made to US adminstration at that time. This expansion was also part of that package deal.
You don't sound very "certain" here. Come back with the specifics.
 
Oh, yes. But India gave the cold shoulder to the U.S. long before that. Even so, U.S. support of Pakistan got a lot colder after the 1965 war, as the U.S. considered Pakistan 100% at fault. If India had not insisted afterwards on hostility towards the U.S., or if it had moved further away from the Soviet Union, things might have worked out differently.
Actual hostility to US starts from 48 when UN resolutions failed to declare Pakistan as aggressor thanks to America.
And from that day the policy farce of stating that US is neutral while giving military aid to Pak further deepens it another event is Bhopal disaster but here significant blame lies on Indian govt.
 
Actual hostility to US starts from 48 when UN resolutions failed to declare Pakistan as aggressor thanks to America.
And from that day the policy farce of stating that US is neutral while giving military aid to Pak further deepens it another event is Bhopal disaster but here significant blame lies on Indian govt.
Union carbide ...lol.. forget it. US govt said they are not part of any agreement or any type of binding.
 
Actual hostility to US starts from 48 when UN resolutions failed to declare Pakistan as aggressor thanks to America.
And from that day the policy farce of stating that US is neutral while giving military aid to Pak further deepens it
You have to remember that the premise of military support to Pakistan was to further the fight against Communism, not conquest of India. It took the 1965 war and Pakistani leaders' petulant declaration that they were tired of diplomacy and sought conquest instead to wake up U.S. policymakers. A golden opportunity for India that gold-loving Indians missed.

Two state solution and no more Palastinian land grabbing.
The Arabs refuse a two-state solution since it means Israel surviving and it's the Europeans who have been supporting illegal Arab land-grabbing efforts throughout the Oslo Accord Areas. Are you going to break off relations with the Arab states and Europe?
 
That's why i already said most blame lies on Indian govt.
Don't know how agreements works when foreign companies are bindings in case of such a havoc accident. Where premises primary liability of security and endangering working condition is a foreign based company ???????????

You have to remember that the premise of military support to Pakistan was to further the fight against Communism, not conquest of India. It took the 1965 war and Pakistani leaders petulant declaration that they were tired of diplomacy and sought conquest instead to wake up U.S. policymakers. A golden opportunity for India that gold-loving Indians missed.


The Arabs refuse a two-state solution since it means Israel surviving and it's the Europeans who have been supporting illegal Arab land-grabbing efforts throughout the Oslo Accord Areas. Are you going to break off relations with the Arab states and Europe?
If I take your words then there is no problem. Then why EU and US is angry ? .....isn't Isreali behavior in the region is providing fertile ground for terrorism and hate in that particular region. We can t call whole world is crazy and disobediant ....

But but ...in close door news outlets says , Saudi and Jordanian are against two state solution. In other words they don't want independent Palastinian state. ....reason ???? you may enlighten us...
 

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


Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom