How sad that you resort to this kind of a bullshit accusation. 1. I've never seen that page before in my life until you linked it. Not that it matters, since it's the validity of the information you ought to have questioned. 2. I read ALL the resolutions against Israel; they were posted (with commentary) ad infinitum and in telling mimicry of each other by blatantly anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Sharonist, and anti-semitic sites. I figured you would doubt the authenticity of the source unless they clearly hated Israel. I found the Economist story after searching on the difference between types of resolutions. I resent both your glee and implications upon finding that someone else has linked the Economist article. Does the economist site not exist? Of course it does. Nothing has been made up. I think far more telling is that you only now decide that the resolutions are indeed different, so your tactics change toward discrediting the value of the very UN resolutions you were trumpeting as damning Israel a few posts ago. So when the evidence does not go in you favor, you don't aknowledge your evidence was shoddy, you now chalk it up to the the meddling US keeping everyone from getting away with an enforcable resolution against Israel. I won't waste any more effort on this; you've reduced yourself to mocking the validity of information and sources I spent valuable time gathering under the misguided hope that your interest in earnest debate might have been genuine. J -------Original Message------- From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. Date: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:49:54 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: OT Anti-human by the way, i think i found the web page you did your 'research' on. anyone who is following this should take a look, it's pretty funny http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/89-2627.asp even the economist story you quoted is there *lol* just because Israels resolutions don't fall under chapter 7 doesn't mean it's more of a threat. They have nuclear weapons! It should be clear, even to you that if anyone tried to push for a chapter 7 resolution against Israel then the US would Veto it. also : ""Although the U.N. Charter authorizes military action for enforcement of Chapter 7 resolutions, there is no formal agreement about how force should be used. Each time the Security Council deems military action necessary, its member states must decide the details among themselves -- an often time-consuming process, with varying degrees of commitment."" from: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2002w42/msg00097.htm "UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, however, said this week that such action [invasion of iraq] would violate the UN Charter. The charter permits the use of force only in cases of self-defense or under authority of the UN Security Council. " from http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/14032003153113.asp "the US threatened to use its veto to prevent a Security Council resolution to send international forces to protect the Palestinian people. Similarly, it brandished its veto to forestall a resolution to send an international investigatory commission to Jenin, forcing the Security Council to adopt, instead, resolution 1405, creating a mere "fact-finding" committee whose remit will extend only to the making of recommendations rather than instigate further actions based on its findings. " from: http://www.sis.gov.eg/online/note/html/n270422a.htm something else yuo might like to note is that Chapter 7 can still be invoke in an attempt to punish Israel for it's crimes against humanity: "writer Charles Krauthammer wrote, " the one advantage of resolution 1441 is that it gave us a window of legitimacy during which to mobilize, position equipment, send ships, line up bases, in short, create the infrastructure for disarming Iraq." I agree with Krauthammer, and add that when Ariel Sharon's forces entered Gaza, January 27, 2003, killing Palestinian civilians and destroying property, the same window of legitimacy was created for the disarmament, and containment of Israel...Chapter 7 of the UN Charter dealing with enforcement measures, Article 39, says: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall take recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." from: http://www.mediamonitors.net/anisaabdelfattah38.html I'll be looking forward to your reply. r _________________________________________________________________ $B%M%C%H$r;H$&$R$H$KM-Mx$JFCE5$$$C$Q$$ (B MSN $B%+!<%I (B http://card.msn.co jp/ .