Well, you claimed that no other country had violated the resolution until I posted its text and specific provisions that were indeed violated and/or were not implemented. It's not my fault that you are silly, ignorant, stubborn and have not read the resolution you're trying to discuss.
If I had to pick between a Supreme Court Justice's foundations for a legal opinion, and yours, based on how emotionally reactive you are, I would have to give favor to a Supreme Court justice's reasoning process... I might not agree with the conclusion, but I would certainly hold Scalia up as an expert witness on the law, especially if I had to chose between his level of expertise and yours concerning the law. Israel's actions of defiance are not mitigated by what other parties do, unless it was written into the agreement itself. Can you show me where in the agreement that failures by the UN or other parties relieves Israel from their obligation to follow the agreement?
You would not agree with Scalia's conclusions even though he is an expert but you do agree with king Kofi's conclusion because he is an expert. And btw it was not even a conclusion, it was an opinion but you still use it to condemn Israel. Way to go Z10, kudos to your objectivity. Anyway what's Kofi Annan's opinion on his own failure to provide troops? What's his opinion on Lebanon's refusal to disarm Hezbollah, on Syria's and Iran's refusal to stop supplying Hezbollah with weapons, on Hezbollah's decision to return to Southern Lebanon? Can you show me where in the resolution it says that they are not mitigated? Thanks in advance. Can you show me where it says that Israel has violated anything? Oh the expert witness, right...
The only thing I said is, Israel broke the UN cease-fire resolution because Israel RAIDED Lebanon using FIREpower. That makes them exclusively WRONG. What YOU'RE failing to admit is that, among other things, the CEASE-FIRE treaty was to primarily END the FIRING. All the rest was BUILT on THAT premise. All the rest did not matter IN COMPARISON TO the ENDING and CESSATION of the FIRING by BOTH sides. Hezzie UPHELD the resolution by NOT FIRING. THAT is what the UN wanted to happen. THAT is WHY the UN wrote the resolution. To RESOLVE (END) the FIRING. THAT is WHY Israel is the transgressor in this scenario. THAT is why YOU are the biggest ******* ******* on this message board. Get less stupid. Iconoclast
It's not "the UN cease-fire resolution" even though cease-fire is part of it, it's equally legitimate to call it the Hezbollah disarmament resolution or the demilitarization of Southern Lebanon resolution as the resolution addresses all those issues EQUALLY. And that's not the only thing you said so stop lying. You said no one else is in violation of the resolution which is not true. No one else is indeed in violation of the cease-fire provision of the resolution but they are in violation of all other provisions of the resolution the cease-fire was contingent on. Now you're simply trying to weasel out of your own words. As I already said pretending that the resolution is about cease-fire only and all other provisions are irrelevant is intellectually dishonest.
Here is a quote from a sample contract which explicitely and unambiguously states the following: 10.1 No Waivers. The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any such provision, nor prevent such party thereafter from enforcing such provision or any other provision of this Agreement. http://contracts.onecle.com/nct/crisp.emp.2000.08.24.shtml Or another quiote: 13. Waiver The failure of either party hereto at any time or times to enforce any provision of this Contract shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions or to affect the validity of this Contract or any part hereof, or the right of either party thereafter to enforce each and every provision in accordance with the terms of this Contract. http://www.obfs.uillinois.edu/Forms/UIContract.doc I've seen these clauses in hundreds of contracts when the parties involved want to assure that the failure to enforce any provision of the contract does not invalidate the entire contract. If you can show me a similar waiver in the UN resolution - I will accept your point of view. Tough luck if you can't though.
Excellent evaluation! Here's another. Dddooo is sitting in a restaurant, a Marie Calendars, eating his 5th straight cherry cream pie with 8" of whipcream on top... Next to him a black guy pulls out a gun, holds it to the waitress's head and demands she remove her uniform and bend over his table. When she complies, he violently sodomizes her, splashing some of their bodily goo onto Dddooo's cherry cream pie. Dddooo is slightly annoyed at this extra topping but wastes no time gobbling it down. Enjoying the show a foot or two away from him, he suddenly realizes he just ate the last crumb of his pie, and that his waitress is now neatly being brutally sodomized next to him. He frantically looks around to find another waitress who can take his order for another pie. This time a cherry cheesecake pie DOUBLE the toppings. He suddenly notices 6 more blacks enter the restaurant, buddies of the rapist, Glocks in hand, and beholds as they causually blow customers away while laughing at them as they die. What does Dddooo do? He says to himself, "Hey, THOSE guys broke the law, that means I don't have to uphold it." Whereupon, he draws his own gun, a .22 caliber, and begins shooting the other customers seated around him. Though he spares the waitresses, he forgets about sexually abusing any of them because, he figures, less time for him to get some more pies to suck down. Of course, he sees himself as innocent and justified in his actions because "no one else" seemed to be holding up laws either. Iconoclast
You would not agree with Scalia's conclusions even though he is an expert but you do agree with king Kofi's conclusion because he is an expert. And btw it was not even a conclusion, it was an opinion but you still use it to condemn Israel. Way to go Z10, kudos to your objectivity. I would not questions Scalia's expertise in the law. It might not agree with his political decisions, but not his level of expertise. This is something apparently you are failing to understand. If Israel is in violation of an agreement, then they are deserving of condemnation accordingly. Anyway what's Kofi Annan's opinion on his own failure to provide troops? Ask him. I am talking about what Israel has done, and naturally, you wish to change the subject and focus away from what Israel has done. What's his opinion on Lebanon's refusal to disarm Hezbollah, on Syria's and Iran's refusal to stop supplying Hezbollah with weapons, on Hezbollah's decision to return to Southern Lebanon? Ask him. I am talking about what Israel has done, and naturally, you wish to change the subject and focus away from what Israel has done. Can you show me where in the resolution it says that they are not mitigated? If you are going to that type of game, it shows you have no answer for my question, i.e. there is no clause for Israel to begin hostilities once again in the event of failure by other parties involved. Thanks in advance. Can you show me where it says that Israel has violated anything? Oh the expert witness, right... Yes, one expert witness, the Secretary General of the United Nations.
My experience thus far in dddooo's defense of what Israel does boils down to: Israel does nothing wrong, Israel has no choice but to act the way they do, Israel is an eternal victim, Israel's primary law is might makes right, Israel's primary principle is the end justifies the means, Israel doesn't have to answer to anyone, the UN is meaningless to Israel, and when people happen to be in the way of Israel's bombing and killing the victims are to blame for their own deaths....