Maas wrote:The difference beteen Nato and the UN is, that Nato doesn't got members who are able to make it toothless by using a veto. It's exactly the country spreading democracy acting like a dictator, while the dictators are acting democratic in the UN. And than muslim nation bribe stuf.... that's just a xenophobic conspiracy thing. At the time the US is using the veto it is when the western world remains undecided but usually are disagreing with the US. It still has yet to be the case that even... most of the werstern world is against it and the muslim + the rest of the world thinks differently.
Thats the only good thing about the UN... the veto in the security council. Its the one thing that prevents countless "police actions" from taking place based on the whims of countries. If the UN wasn't "toothless", we'd certainly be in a lot more wars all across the world. Who cares what you say or do when its other people's troops who fight or other nations who suffer.
As for the comment being xenophobic, thats hardly the case. We've seem numerous times where the Muslim countries unite to achieve political goals against specific countries. The biggest one that is still having ramifications over how the West acts is the 1973 oil embargo. Its quite amusing that that was about the same time that Europe titled away from its pro-Israel attitude. As for specific instances where we have the Western world against the Muslim countries and their lackeys, just look at the recent defamation against religion vote in the UN. Or look how the wording of bills gets done in anti-Israel measures. It shouldn't be surprising the Muslim nation's influence in the UN, they have the numbers.
And Fatah vs Hamas....
I think you have to consider that the Israeli's left the gaza strip, while they increased building structures in the westbank by 60% last year.
So in Gaza there is poverty and distruction while there is ethnic cleansing in the westbank. 
Ethnic cleansing is a big, big word with a pretty specific meaning that gets thrown around a lot. I'll use Merriam Webster's definition "the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity." How exactly is that occurring in the West Bank? It appears that you believe settlements, which don't kick Arabs out of the West bank, somehow ethnically cleanses the West Bank? Thats a far, far stretch. The vast majority of settlements are in areas where there are no Palestinians but yet open area. Plus, considering that settlements appear to have a small, if any, impact on the final peace there is no reason to consider it ethnic cleansing.
Infact, there is only one group out there actively proposing ethnic cleansing over a territory and that is Hamas. Yet, we are to forgive them for their desire to ethnically cleanse? Israel is expected to tolerate attacks by Hamas and not fight back? Here is a part of Hamas's charter
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
That, right there, is ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is proposing and actively seeking the annihilation of another ethnic group, not expanding on territory that will probably be given back and doesn't contain Palestinians.
"If you see a blind man, kick him. Why be kinder than god?"
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish