Local report on the ICJ interim ruling of a few hours ago ><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/top-un-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/HQATBL54TVGVBA2CMRTYIODAHE/>.
Some are disappointed the Court ruling did not go further. But I guess
they were aware they would be ignored by Israel and its main backer,
the US, no matter what. Also, weak as the verdict was, it still left >Netanyahu livid, which means it has achieved something.
Interesting thing about how the judges voted: Israel had the right to
appoint one of their own judges to the bench for this trial, which
they did. But the one judge that voted against all the verdicts was
not their one.
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:10:52 +1300, Crash wrote:
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Complain to your USENET provider. Maybe you signed up to the wrong USENET >plan.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:10:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Local report on the ICJ interim ruling of a few hours ago >>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/top-un-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/HQATBL54TVGVBA2CMRTYIODAHE/>.
Some are disappointed the Court ruling did not go further. But I guess >>>they were aware they would be ignored by Israel and its main backer,
the US, no matter what. Also, weak as the verdict was, it still left >>>Netanyahu livid, which means it has achieved something.
Interesting thing about how the judges voted: Israel had the right to >>>appoint one of their own judges to the bench for this trial, which
they did. But the one judge that voted against all the verdicts was
not their one.
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Quite a few New Zealanders are interested in the topic.
There is
protest relating to the war in Gaza that was to have started in
Wellington at 2pm, going from the City Square to Parliament. While not >related directly to that conflict, New Zealand has just this week sent
6 New Zealand Defence personnel to assist the USA until the end of
July; indicating a possible move away from an independent foreign
policy, but also stated as relating to concerns about Trade being
affected by disruptions to passage through the Red Sea - I understand
about 13% of our trade is through that route.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Local report on the ICJ interim ruling of a few hours ago >><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/top-un-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/HQATBL54TVGVBA2CMRTYIODAHE/>.
Some are disappointed the Court ruling did not go further. But I guess
they were aware they would be ignored by Israel and its main backer,
the US, no matter what. Also, weak as the verdict was, it still left >>Netanyahu livid, which means it has achieved something.
Interesting thing about how the judges voted: Israel had the right to >>appoint one of their own judges to the bench for this trial, which
they did. But the one judge that voted against all the verdicts was
not their one.
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Did you not understand what I said? Your reply is nonsensical.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:59:43 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>I am not deluded. I usually only complain when you fuck all over threads I start - the exception is when you are just being an asshole - which is most of the time.
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:16:19 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:10:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Local report on the ICJ interim ruling of a few hours ago >>>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/top-un-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/HQATBL54TVGVBA2CMRTYIODAHE/>.
Some are disappointed the Court ruling did not go further. But I guess >>>>>they were aware they would be ignored by Israel and its main backer, >>>>>the US, no matter what. Also, weak as the verdict was, it still left >>>>>Netanyahu livid, which means it has achieved something.
Interesting thing about how the judges voted: Israel had the right to >>>>>appoint one of their own judges to the bench for this trial, which >>>>>they did. But the one judge that voted against all the verdicts was >>>>>not their one.
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related >>>>posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Quite a few New Zealanders are interested in the topic.
Then they should find a relevant ng where I am sure there will be
threads like this.
There is
protest relating to the war in Gaza that was to have started in >>>Wellington at 2pm, going from the City Square to Parliament. While not >>>related directly to that conflict, New Zealand has just this week sent
6 New Zealand Defence personnel to assist the USA until the end of
July; indicating a possible move away from an independent foreign
policy, but also stated as relating to concerns about Trade being >>>affected by disruptions to passage through the Red Sea - I understand >>>about 13% of our trade is through that route.
None of which justifies posting in nz.general. Perusing historical
posts to this ng will show that almost all threads are about NZ
issues.
Indeed, almost all threads are, but that does include many posts about
events or issues from other countries that may be relevant to New
Zealand, or interesting to posters whether resident in New Zealand or >elsewhere.
I found an FAQ for the nz.general usenet group - see here: >https://groups.google.com/g/nz.net.announce/c/9yFgfBv_5bY
which includes:
nz.general
==========
The cesspool of the nz.* hierarchy, Everything tends to be discussed
here with other groups only picking up the scraps.
Examples: speed cameras, Shortland Street, Current affairs.
If at all possible, you should use a more specialized nz.* group in
order to make sure your post stands out from the clutter.
==========
_____________________________________________________
Some interesting history - it appears nz.general was set up in 1985,
and also a recent announcement:
"Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of >historical data will still be supported as it is done today." >_______________________________________________________
If anyone posting to nz.general uses Google Groups they will probably
have already seen that notice.
And as far as "Rules" about posts being responses to a single poster,
and about the initial poster in a thread being the sole arbiter of
whether responses are on- or off-topic, or whether a subject is
permitted or not - well those arguments just add to the cesspool image
of nz.general - so Tony can stick his delusions where . . ., well lets
not go there.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:16:19 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:10:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Local report on the ICJ interim ruling of a few hours ago >>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/top-un-court-orders-israel-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-but-stops-short-of-ordering-cease-fire/HQATBL54TVGVBA2CMRTYIODAHE/>.
Some are disappointed the Court ruling did not go further. But I guess >>>>they were aware they would be ignored by Israel and its main backer, >>>>the US, no matter what. Also, weak as the verdict was, it still left >>>>Netanyahu livid, which means it has achieved something.
Interesting thing about how the judges voted: Israel had the right to >>>>appoint one of their own judges to the bench for this trial, which
they did. But the one judge that voted against all the verdicts was
not their one.
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Quite a few New Zealanders are interested in the topic.
Then they should find a relevant ng where I am sure there will be
threads like this.
There is
protest relating to the war in Gaza that was to have started in
Wellington at 2pm, going from the City Square to Parliament. While not >>related directly to that conflict, New Zealand has just this week sent
6 New Zealand Defence personnel to assist the USA until the end of
July; indicating a possible move away from an independent foreign
policy, but also stated as relating to concerns about Trade being
affected by disruptions to passage through the Red Sea - I understand
about 13% of our trade is through that route.
None of which justifies posting in nz.general. Perusing historical
posts to this ng will show that almost all threads are about NZ
issues.
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >rules, why would you join the UN?
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your silly references to National are just as silly as ever.
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >>malicious compliance?
guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision;
they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded
organisation
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced
different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have
the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid
from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have
been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it
was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the
US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed
many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it
being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has
however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and
peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while
we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated;
New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent
foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian
efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military
conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being
seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked
more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by
our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been
press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with
the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by
Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to
defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign
Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
The people we have sent are on a policing mission ...
they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded
organisation
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it
was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed many
times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it being relinquished by the five with that power.
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >explain its progress on following the judgement.
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >rules, why would you join the UN?
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people in waters that are available to them for transit? If not then that needs explanation, if so then you are not on the side of the angels.
The people we have sent are on a policing mission ...
Who appointed them “police”? “Police” have to be some duly-constituted >enforcement authority, with the weight of the law behind them. In this
case, it would have to be a UN resolution. Which we do not have.
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:10:52 +1300, Crash wrote:
Why are you posting this in nz.general? This ng is for nz-related
posts, as evidenced by the posting history.
Complain to your USENET provider. Maybe you signed up to the wrong USENET >plan.
Maybe the court should have told Hamas to return the hostages alive ...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your silly >references to National are just as silly as ever.
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >>>malicious compliance?
guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision;
they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded
organisation
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced
different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have
the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid
from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have
been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it
was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the
US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed
many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it
being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has
however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and
peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while
we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated;
New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent
foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military
conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being
seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked
more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by
our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been
press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with
the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by
Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to
defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign
Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >>>>>malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>>>>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>>>>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have
the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has
however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being
seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to
defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from
Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports
have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not
obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
They are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith CollinsNo it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - go >and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >local (NZ) politics.
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
I am sorry you were unable to comprehend that sentence - get help,mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that partyMeaningless drivel.
that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard
anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith
Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister
are not clear.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >>>>malicious compliance?
organisation
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>>>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>>>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced
different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have
the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the
US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed
many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has
however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and
peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while
we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent
foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military
conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being
seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked
more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by
our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been
press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to
defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign
Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from
Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports
have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not
obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically
assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.No it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - go and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is local (NZ) politics.
mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that partyMeaningless drivel.
that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard
anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith
Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister
are not clear.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for >assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>>>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>>>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/
malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>>>>>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>>>>>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have >>>>>the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has >>>>>however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being >>>>>seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to >>>>>defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from
Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports >>>have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not
obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
They are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
is bit like saying that Netanyahu is "assisting" Hamas and the people
in Gaza, or that Hamas are "assisting" the people in Gaza.
Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith CollinsNo it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - go >>and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >>local (NZ) politics.
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
announced - are you accusing her of lying?
I am sorry you were unable to comprehend that sentence - get help,mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that party >>>that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard >>>anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith >>>Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister >>>are not clear.Meaningless drivel.
Tony.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:20:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course it is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for >assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>>>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>>>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/
malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are >>>>>>part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to >>>>>>abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have >>>>>the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has >>>>>however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being >>>>>seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to >>>>>defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from
Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports >>>have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not
obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
Bullshit - they are assisting every country that passes through that strait - obviously (other than to you).They are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
is bit like saying that Netanyahu is "assisting" Hamas and the people
in Gaza, or that Hamas are "assisting" the people in Gaza.
Many and varied and especiially in this thread.Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
Dopn't be such a fool.That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith CollinsNo it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - go >>
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >>local (NZ) politics.
announced - are you accusing her of lying?
Meaningless drivel.mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that party >>>that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard >>>anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith >>>Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister >>>are not clear.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 15:47:21 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>The Guardian is the leading left wing newspaper in the western world - who would expect anything but nonsense from thme - especially on a juicy political topic like this one.
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for >>assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>>>>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>>>>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>>>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer >>>>>>>token/
malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council >>>>>>>are
part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees >>>>>>>to
abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have >>>>>>the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has >>>>>>however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being >>>>>>seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to >>>>>>defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from >>>>Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports >>>>have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not >>>>obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>>>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
They are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
is bit like saying that Netanyahu is "assisting" Hamas and the people
in Gaza, or that Hamas are "assisting" the people in Gaza.
Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith Collins >>announced - are you accusing her of lying?No it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - >>>go
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >>>local (NZ) politics.
I am sorry you were unable to comprehend that sentence - get help,mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that party >>>>that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard >>>>anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith >>>>Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister >>>>are not clear.Meaningless drivel.
Tony.
The following article may be of interest to those with an open mind: >https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/new-zealands-red-sea-deployment-points-to-a-selective-concern-over-international-law
and from that article:
Not only does the dispatch of the NZDF team to the Red Sea strengthen
the impression of a diplomatic U-turn in Wellington, it also points to
a selective concern about maintaining international law.
By agreeing to send an NZDF team to the Red Sea without demanding the
US end its opposition to a ceasefire in Gaza, the New Zealand
government seems to have retreated from an independent foreign policy
based on principles and values.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:How, Tony? The UN will be aware of what the USA is doing of course,
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:20:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course it is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for >>assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a policing >>>>>mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree we >>>>>support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>>>silly
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/
malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are
part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to
abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have >>>>>>the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has >>>>>>however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being >>>>>>seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to >>>>>>defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from >>>>Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports >>>>have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on
shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not >>>>obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance
other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>>>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
That is your interpretation, and undoubtedly the view of many that theThey are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
is bit like saying that Netanyahu is "assisting" Hamas and the people
in Gaza, or that Hamas are "assisting" the people in Gaza.
Bullshit - they are assisting every country that passes through that strait - >obviously (other than to you).As above - those that they are firing at may not appreciate the
That is of course an unsupported assertion - you seem to like those .Many and varied and especiially in this thread.Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
In regards to the matters discussed in this thread, yes New Zealand is assisting the USA, at their request.Dopn't be such a fool.
That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith Collins >>announced - are you accusing her of lying?No it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - go
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >>>local (NZ) politics.
We are helping many countries, the US is one of them.
You may think it drivel that Judith Collins is Defence Minister, butMeaningless drivel.
mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that party >>>>that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard >>>>anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith >>>>Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister >>>>are not clear.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:10:01 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey are helping many nations in what is cletrly a police action.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:How, Tony? The UN will be aware of what the USA is doing of course,
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:20:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course it is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You said that we were obliged to help the UN - they have not asked for >>>assistance, this is nothing to do with the UN.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:38:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No that is wrong and deliberately obtuse.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:41:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That last paragraph is nonsense. The people we have sent are on a >>>>>>policing
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to >>>>>>>>explain its progress on following the judgement.I don't know about malicious, but they are saying that they are not >>>>>>>guilty of genocide, and will not fully comply with the court decision; >>>>>>>they are claiming self-defence from a foreign country funded >>>>>>>organisation
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer >>>>>>>>token/
malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council >>>>>>>>are
part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees >>>>>>>>to
abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those >>>>>>>>rules, why would you join the UN?
I suspect that when Israel joined the UN, it's government faced >>>>>>>different difficulties, and did not face the same problems, or have >>>>>>>the same policies relating to non-Jewish members of their country. Aid >>>>>>>from the United States has been important to Israel, and may not have >>>>>>>been as forthcoming if Israel had not joined the UN.
New Zealand has been a strong supporter of the United Nationals, as it >>>>>>>was of the League of Nations. The existence of the Veto power of the >>>>>>>US, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom has been discussed >>>>>>>many times over the years, and I suspect New Zealand would support it >>>>>>>being relinquished by the five with that power. New Zealand has >>>>>>>however frequently provided assistance to humanitarian and >>>>>>>peace-keeping aid efforts organised through the United Nations; while >>>>>>>we are small the symbolic support has been understood and appreciated; >>>>>>>New Zealand has benefited from being seen to adopt an independent >>>>>>>foreign policy while also supporting UN diplomatic and humanitarian >>>>>>>efforts.
That is why the move to support the United States in a military >>>>>>>conflict in the Middle east has been such a surprise, and is being >>>>>>>seen as New Zealand moving closer to identifying ourselves as linked >>>>>>>more closely to the United States. Our ability to negotiate trade >>>>>>>arrangements with China and possibly other countries was assisted by >>>>>>>our more neutral foreign affairs policy in the past. There has been >>>>>>>press speculation that National wishes to expand our involvement with >>>>>>>the AUKUS agreement which would move us further from being regarded as >>>>>>>non-aligned in foreign policy. This latest decision was presented by >>>>>>>Judith Collins as being in relation to security of Trade and to >>>>>>>defence cooperation / training;we do not know what advice Foreign >>>>>>>Affairs will have given before that decision was made.
mission - something we are obliged to do to help the UN which you agree >>>>>>we
support. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the US and your >>>>>>silly
references to National are just as silly as ever.
No, Judith Collins made it clear that this is an assignment from >>>>>Defence of 6 specialists for the period up to the end of July. Reports >>>>>have identified that they are assisting with targetting places on >>>>>shore where missiles are being launched against ships. We are not >>>>>obliged to assist the UN - the UN has made no call for assistance >>>>>other than for aid for those in need in Gaza. This is specifically >>>>>assistance to the US - I think to their Navy.
The UN does not have to be involved.
but it is not at the request of the United Nations.
That is your interpretation, and undoubtedly the view of many that theThey are assisting more than one Nation - probably more than 50.No, they are assisting the USA. That may assist other nations, but it
is bit like saying that Netanyahu is "assisting" Hamas and the people
in Gaza, or that Hamas are "assisting" the people in Gaza.
USA is not firing weapons against - those people may believe
differently.
Bullshit - they are assisting every country that passes through that strait - >>obviously (other than to you).As above - those that they are firing at may not appreciate the
'assistance'
That is of course an unsupported assertion - you seem to like those .Many and varied and especiially in this thread.Geez you are nasty, your lies are legion.You have not identified any lies from me . . .
. .
In regards to the matters discussed in this thread, yes New Zealand is >assisting the USA, at their request.Dopn't be such a fool.
That we are providing assistance to the USA is what Judith Collins >>>announced - are you accusing her of lying?No it does not. We don't need approval from them to do good in the world - >>>>go
Yes it does have relevance for our relationship with the US.
and find something that is not nonsense to post. Your only interest here is >>>>local (NZ) politics.
We are helping many countries, the US is one of them.
Meaningless drivel from rich80105.Meaningless drivel.
mentioned National because the speculation was that it was that party >>>>>that talked about expanding involvement in AUKUS; I have not heard >>>>>anything further since the NAct1st coalition was formed, but Judith >>>>>Collins is Defence Minister; Winston Peters' views as Foreign Minister >>>>>are not clear.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:It is a bleeding police action, no euphamism.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Don’t hide behind
euphemisms like “police action”.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Dont hide behind >>>euphemisms like police action.
It is a bleeding police action ...
Police are not self-appointed. A more appropriate term would be lynch >mob.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Don’t hide behind >>euphemisms like “police action”.
It is a bleeding police action ...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Policing is what it is - if that does not suit your politics then maybe you should change them.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Don’t hide behind >>>euphemisms like “police action”.
It is a bleeding police action ...
“Police” are not self-appointed. A more appropriate term would be “lynch >mob”.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:28:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Sorry to see that you have degenrated so far - they are not police, nobody said they are.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Remember the Iraq invasion of 2003? This is how it started.
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Dont hide behind >>>>euphemisms like police action.
It is a bleeding police action ...
Bleeding is possibly the least of the results of a missile attack.
Police do not usually help with targeting weapons of war . . .
Police are not self-appointed. A more appropriate term would be lynch >>mob.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Israel has been directed to report back to the ICJ within one month to
explain its progress on following the judgement.
Do you think it will do so? Will it ignore the order? Or only offer token/ >> malicious compliance?
Remember, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council are
part of the binding mechanisms of the UN, that a member country agrees to
abide by when they join up. If you have no intention of following those
rules, why would you join the UN?
Maybe the court should have told Hamas to return the hostages alive
and then they may get their ceasefire until them I hope Israel keeps
it up.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:39:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:So you say without any evidence to support it. Until then I will continue to stick with my opinion.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Don’t hide behind >>>>>euphemisms like “police action”.
It is a bleeding police action ...
“Police” are not self-appointed. A more appropriate term would be >>>“lynch
mob”.
Policing is what it is ...
“Policing” is done according to the law. In this case, it has to be >international law. Which means a resolution of the Security Council.
Don’t try to use the term to dress up lynch mob/vigilante action as >something respectable.I didn't and your innuendo is abusive. Give it a rest.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:09:01 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 23:32:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
So are you saying it is OK to shell innocent people ...
If you want a wider war in the region, say so. Don’t hide behind >>>>euphemisms like “police action”.
It is a bleeding police action ...
“Police” are not self-appointed. A more appropriate term would be “lynch
mob”.
Policing is what it is ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing” is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:58:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I see you have removed the context, I don't particularly care but it makes it hard to address your supposed concern; however you have yet to demonstrate your accusation has any validity.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing” is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
It’s in the definition of the term. If you are referring to something
else, use some other term.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:58:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I see you have removed the context, I don't particularly care but it makes it >hard to address your supposed concern; however you have yet to demonstrate your
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing? is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
It’s in the definition of the term. If you are referring to something >>else, use some other term.
accusation has any validity.
Please do so or just forget it.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:14:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:58:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I see you have removed the context, I don't particularly care but it makes it >>hard to address your supposed concern; however you have yet to demonstrate >>your
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing? is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
It’s in the definition of the term. If you are referring to something >>>else, use some other term.
accusation has any validity.
Please do so or just forget it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:14:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyWeasel words removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:58:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I see you have removed the context, I don't particularly care but it makes it
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing? is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
It’s in the definition of the term. If you are referring to something >>>>else, use some other term.
hard to address your supposed concern; however you have yet to demonstrate >>>your
accusation has any validity.
Please do so or just forget it.
You continue to go off track and dive into an abyss of rhtorucal nonsense. >The idiots are firng expolosives at law abiding people. they need to be >stopped, we are helipng - that is great. I am delighted that we are.
You on the other hand are supporting lawlessness and terrorism in not >condemning them and in not supporteing the assistance we are giving.
That is clear.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:29:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:14:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyWeasel words removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:58:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I see you have removed the context, I don't particularly care but it makes >>>>it
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
“Policing? is done according to the law.
So you say without any evidence to support it.
It’s in the definition of the term. If you are referring to something >>>>>else, use some other term.
hard to address your supposed concern; however you have yet to demonstrate >>>>your
accusation has any validity.
Please do so or just forget it.
You continue to go off track and dive into an abyss of rhtorucal nonsense. >>The idiots are firng expolosives at law abiding people. they need to be >>stopped, we are helipng - that is great. I am delighted that we are.
You on the other hand are supporting lawlessness and terrorism in not >>condemning them and in not supporteing the assistance we are giving.
That is clear.
Our 6 Defence force people that have been seconded to theThey did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started it, illegally, we are helping to stop that.
USA will be assisting to fire explosives at people; by what law is
that legal? What evidence do you have that they are not assisting in >lawlessness and terrorism?
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Perhaps you did when you were a child.
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
That’s how children argue when the adults tell them to cut it out, don’t >they? “He started it!” “No, HE started it!”
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Perhaps you did when you were a child.
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
That’s how children argue when the adults tell them to cut it out, don’t >>they? “He started it!? “No, HE started it!?
However I am merely stating a fact. They did start firing munitions at legally >operating ships. You appear to think they should be allowed to continue - well >chum, that is where lunacy resides.
All your proselytizing will not change that.
Your debating style is interesting - mostly it seems to be to attack the person
not the ideas. Hmmm, fascinating.
They did start firing munitions at legally operating ships.
You appear to think they should be allowed to continue ...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Is that the homily you live by?
They did start firing munitions at legally operating ships.
You appear to think they should be allowed to continue ...
“We must do something!”
“This is something.”
“Let’s do it!”
Maybe think a little bit before shooting your guns--and your mouth--off.Why do you debate in such an abusive way - I am not shooting my mouth off. My opinions are every bit as valid as yours - but apparently when I express them you generate within yourself some (god-given?) right to be abusive.
The Houthis have already been on the receiving end of the worst that the >Saudis and the UAE could throw at them. And they emerged bloodied, but >unbowed. You think a few random missile strikes from the US and UK (and
us) will really bother them?
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Perhaps you did when you were a child.
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
That’s how children argue when the adults tell them to cut it out, don’t >>>they? “He started it!? “No, HE started it!?
However I am merely stating a fact. They did start firing munitions at >>legally
operating ships. You appear to think they should be allowed to continue - >>well
chum, that is where lunacy resides.
All your proselytizing will not change that.
Your debating style is interesting - mostly it seems to be to attack the >>person
not the ideas. Hmmm, fascinating.
Well put Tony. I have only one person in my killfile - RAS - and even
then it is 'mark as read' so I can still see but ignore their posts.
Larry is coming close because of his irrationality.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Perhaps you did when you were a child.
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
That’s how children argue when the adults tell them to cut it out, don’t >>>they? “He started it!? “No, HE started it!?
However I am merely stating a fact. They did start firing munitions at legally
operating ships. You appear to think they should be allowed to continue - well
chum, that is where lunacy resides.
All your proselytizing will not change that.
Your debating style is interesting - mostly it seems to be to attack the person
not the ideas. Hmmm, fascinating.
Well put Tony. I have only one person in my killfile - RAS - and even
then it is 'mark as read' so I can still see but ignore their posts.
Larry is coming close because of his irrationality.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:01:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Perhaps you did when you were a child.
They did not start it - the Houthi (if that is their name) started
it ...
Thatâs how children argue when the adults tell them to cut it out, donât
they? âHe started it!â? âNo, HE started it!â?
However I am merely stating a fact. They did start firing munitions at legally
operating ships. You appear to think they should be allowed to continue - well
chum, that is where lunacy resides.
All your proselytizing will not change that.
Your debating style is interesting - mostly it seems to be to attack the person
not the ideas. Hmmm, fascinating.
Well put Tony. I have only one person in my killfile - RAS - and even
then it is 'mark as read' so I can still see but ignore their posts.
Larry is coming close because of his irrationality.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Maybe think a little bit before shooting your guns--and your mouth--off. >>The Houthis have already been on the receiving end of the worst that the >>Saudis and the UAE could throw at them. And they emerged bloodied, but >>unbowed. You think a few random missile strikes from the US and UK (and[Ranty McRantface]
us) will really bother them?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:16:46 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,598 |