NationStates Jolt Archive

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:

2 things

1) Non-Proliferation Treaty

2)We haven't made it a known goal to erradicate an entire nation, or shout "death to (insert nation here)" as a national policy.

It's because America doesn't believe in a level playing field. Other nations possessing nuclear weaponry means they might have an equalizer against the United States, not to mention nukes would easily shatter the illusion of safety and invisibility many Bush voters feel because the fight is on the other side of the globe.

We haven't made it a known goal to erradicate an entire nation, or shout "death to (insert nation here)" as a national policy.
That'll be news to the Russians. And most of Latin America.

2 things

1) Non-Proliferation Treaty

2)We haven't made it a known goal to erradicate an entire nation, or shout "death to (insert nation here)" as a national policy.

Yes, but its not just Iran, that was one example, most nations in the Middle East want that too, and Irasel is also inflaming the situation by the things they're saying/doing about and with their military

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:
Thank you for your well thought out statement, presenting different views, opinions, and facts on this subject.

I am over joyed to know that you are not like others in that you only spit out a sentence or two of your opinion and hope everyone takes it as an intellectual view point. Those people are soooo infantile!

My opinion: Since Iran is a constitutional Islamic Republic, and has engaged in an anti-Western course, it is only best for America, the U.N., or NATO to give it a hard time.

The Americans are the World Police Force, didn't you know?

Yes, but its not just Iran, that was one example, most nations in the Middle East want that too, and Irasel is also inflaming the situation by the things they're saying/doing about and with their military

Hm, why do you think other nations in the Middle East want nuclear power as well? And how do you think Israel, which has recently given ground to the Islamic nation of Palestine is inflaming the situation?

Thank you for your well thought out statement, presenting different views, opinions, and facts on this subject.

I am over joyed to know that you are not like others in that you only spit out a sentence or two of your opinion and hope everyone takes it as an intellectual view point. Those people are soooo infantile!

My opinion: Since Iran is a constitutional Islamic Republic, and has engaged in an anti-Western course, it is only best for America, the U.N., or NATO to give it a hard time.
Whats wrong with anti-western? Thats just like saying the Iranians saying "They're anti-East, we'd better stop them from having nuclear weaponary."

Hm, why do you think other nations in the Middle East want nuclear power as well? And how do you think Israel, which has recently given ground to the Islamic nation of Palestine is inflaming the situation?
Well telling the world their military is so awesome it could hit Iranian weapons facialities* creates a mind set that is not helping... I mean would you like to be told by a man walking by that he has a gun and could easily shoot you.

Whats wrong with anti-western? Thats just like saying the Iranians saying "They're anti-East, we'd better stop them from having nuclear weaponary."

No, if they were anti-East, then the U.S. would not be doing the things it is doing. As a result of Iran being anti-West it can be put into the very large genre of other entities and organizations that are "Anti-West". You can find everything from the liberal next door to terrorist in this genre "Anti-west". But few entities in the genre are entire countries such as Iran that might have attained nuclear proficiency, or are about to.

Do you like North Korea?

The U.S. is not so much the world police as so much just a really big animal that wants to live forever. The Pentagon, NSA, military advisers, the whole circus, considers Iran to be somewhat of a threat, and someone in that whole circus really wants to stop them from having nuclear weapons.

Yes, but its not just Iran, that was one example, most nations in the Middle East want that too, and Irasel is also inflaming the situation by the things they're saying/doing about and with their military

Tell someone that you want to kill them and there whole family and see how they react. Then move it on to an international scale.

Well telling the world their military is so awesome it could hit Iranian weapons facialities* creates a mind set that is not helping... I mean would you like to be told by a man walking by that he has a gun and could easily shoot you.

I would smile and dismiss it. If he tried to shoot me I would make sure he walks away atleast bleeding, preferably more than me.

And Israel releasing that information, is like a conservative news organization telling the whole world how awesome Taiwan's Air Force is, and that if China ever attacks Taiwan, it would lose.

It is a mix of propaganda and threats, and in my current mindset, any mature homosapien should be able to ignore it, instead of strapping a bomb on himself and going out to kill civilians. I find it interesting that you mark Israel down for something it said "hit Iranian weapons facilities", but ignore the fact that fundie muslims walk out and blow themselves up destroying and maiming public property and civilians.

It's because America doesn't believe in a level playing field. Other nations possessing nuclear weaponry means they might have an equalizer against the United States, not to mention nukes would easily shatter the illusion of safety and invisibility many Bush voters feel because the fight is on the other side of the globe.

We'll see how level Europe wants the playing field when Iran declares them all supporters of Israel and makes it a goal on their agenda to destroy them. :)

It's not like Iran can use nuclear weapons against America. Iran CAN use nuclear weapons against the Euro's.

It is a mix of propaganda and threats, and in my current mindset, any mature homosapien should be able to ignore it, instead of strapping a bomb on himself and going out to kill civilians. I find it interesting that you mark Israel down for something it said "hit Iranian weapons facilities", but ignore the fact that fundie muslims walk out and blow themselves up destroying and maiming public property and civilians.

Exactly. Alot of people think that Israel didn't have their military ready to destroy Iran before that report where they were being told to "prepare" came out.

That'll be news to the Russians. And most of Latin America.
See: The Truman Doctrine

"Anti-expansion" and "Anti-Sovietization"

Not eradication.

Though I've yet to learn how Latin America went.

This again? If Iran get's a nuke they will 'lose it' and it will apear in New York Harbor and will go boom. Then we go to war with Iran and Canada will back us in that because we are allies despite recent leadership decisions. So this affects you to.

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:
Hmm

Scenario 1: We stop Iran from getting nuclear weaponry.
USA: Yay, they don't have nuclear weapons!
World: Fuck you U.S., why can't you leave the world alone?

Scenario 2: We DON'T stop Iran from getting nuclear weaponry
Iran: Hey Middle-East! Let's all invade Israel! I got n00ks!
Middle-East: Yah!
USA: Hey wait, don't use your nuclear weapons! Oh shit shit shit we gotta stop this...
World: Fuck you U.S., why do you take forever to do anything? This is your late entry to WW2 all over again!


So really, pleasing the world isn't a possibility anymore.

*snip*

Wow, your wisdom and understanding of international politics has taught me something: the U.S. will always be looked down on by someone.
Thank you sensei.

Though I've yet to learn how Latin America went.

Badly. With lots of death and dictatorships. It's been improving for a while now, and seems to turning to the left.

This again? If Iran get's a nuke they will 'lose it' and it will apear in New York Harbor and will go boom. Then we go to war with Iran and Canada will back us in that because we are allies despite recent leadership decisions. So this affects you to.

You forgot Poland! They'll back you too.

I still say the US should remove its troops from all bases (minus Strategic AF bases) and just let everyone else kill each other. That's what happens in Europe ever 100 or so years. That's what happens in the Middle East every day. Asia is Asia.

At least it won't be American troops anymore.

Hm, why do you think other nations in the Middle East want nuclear power as well? And how do you think Israel, which has recently given ground to the Islamic nation of Palestine is inflaming the situation?
Since when is Palestine a nation? That would mean the US is supporting Israel in war crimes, rather than a genocide campaign against an underclass...

I still say the US should remove its troops from all bases (minus Strategic AF bases) and just let everyone else kill each other. That's what happens in Europe ever 100 or so years. That's what happens in the Middle East every day. Asia is Asia.

At least it won't be American troops anymore.

It used to happen every five years or so. No longer.

You forgot Poland! They'll back you too.

Only as long as the investment pours in. No money, no troops. The population arent even supportive of the Iraq effort.


And how do you think Israel, which has recently given ground to the Islamic nation of Palestine is inflaming the situation?.

They gave back what they had illegally occupied with 8,000 settlers on stolen Arab land so they could take the 30,000 troops it took to protect them and use them to strengthen their hold on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They didn't do it for the good of their health.

They inflame the situation by their continuing presence outside their 1967 borders, and clearly showing the double standard the US uses in international affairs.

Only as long as the investment pours in. No money, no troops. The population arent even supportive of the Iraq effort.

It was just a joke about a Bushism. Although if a nation nuked America, every single European would join a war against it. Guaranteed.

It was just a joke about a Bushism. Although if a nation nuked America, every single European would join a war against it. Guaranteed.

Bull.

So really, pleasing the world isn't a possibility anymore.
When was it ever a possibility?

It was just a joke about a Bushism. Although if a nation nuked America, every single European would join a war against it. Guaranteed.

I think you mean every NATO member would. And the UN might acutually get off it's ass and do something. Nice Bushism though.

Wow, your wisdom and understanding of international politics has taught me something: the U.S. will always be looked down on by someone.
Thank you sensei.
And of course, you reaching out to lend a hand in aiding me to learn more just proves to me something not about your country, but about yourself.

Couldn't even be bothered to try, eh?

I think you mean every NATO member would. And the UN might acutually get off it's ass and do something. Nice Bushism though.

Nope. I mean all of them. We are your allies after all.

Bull.
No, it is guaranteed.
For example, pretty much every single nation in Europe is part of NATO, and NATO has binding policies requiring every member to take an attack on an Ally as an attack on itself. That goes especially for nuclear attacks.

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:

Well, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty bans the development and construction of nuclear weapons by states that don't already posess the technology, and Iran is a signatory. The same document however, under Article 4 IIRC, specifically allows nations to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, which is so far what Iran has said it is doing(and no one can prove otherwise).

I'm not saying it's fair. In fact, I think it's a neo-imperialist move by those already on top militarily to attempt to remain on top, by preventing developing nations from ever having the arsenal to stand up to the big guys. I find the idea that some nations have a right to WMDs while others do not to be abhorrant, but at the same time these nations chose to sign the treaty, and I believe they must abide by it.

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:

Pehaps you are too young to remember the Cold War. I, however, remember having "duck and cover" (as if that's going to help) nuclear attack drills in grade school. Ever hear of MAD? (Mutually Assured Destruction) Do you know that the little Kennedy "incident" with Cuba almost triggered a nuclear war? Since the Russian commander in Cuba was ordered to launch if the U.S. invaded.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty exists for a purpose, and no, it's not just so you have another reason to bitch about the U.S. Colodia is dead on in this one. The other nuclear powers signed that treaty too. (so did North Korea, but no suprise, given their schizophrenic foreign policy- they backed out of it)

The treaty is there because the more nuclear weapons there are and the more countries that have them, make it more easy and vastly more likely that they are used. Of course, we can do it your way, and let Iran have them. Which they are sure to fire at Israel. And try to smuggle into the U.S. And Europe. And Canada. You know, EVERYONE who is not a Muslim Theocracy. So you tell me who is the "assinine" one.

No, it is guaranteed.
For example, pretty much every single nation in Europe is part of NATO, and NATO has binding policies requiring every member to take an attack on an Ally as an attack on itself. That goes especially for nuclear attacks.

I'd really wait and see for something of that nature to happen before I could make conclusions. I bet some portion of the members would pussy out or come up with lame excuse for not providing full support if it meant full-out large scale conflict. It's only in those times where you can really see if someone fulfills their obligations.

I'd really wait and see for something of that nature to happen before I could make conclusions. I bet some portion of the members would pussy out or come up with lame excuse for not providing full support if it meant full-out large scale conflict. It's only in those times where you can really see if someone fulfills their obligations.

You mean like in WWI when alliances brought the world to massive warfare because one little guy got killed in one small country?

Okay, this would be a frist post for me, but i think you guys are taking it a little too far.

The US does not want any other state to have Nukes for the simple reason that it cannot defend itself VS them. One could say that that kind of thinking will someday limit the space exporation in the near future. The US or for that matter any one else in the world has NO right to say what nations should and should not have.

Also, in my mind, Isreal is a war mongering mistake of a state. Thier is no reason that nation should have been created. it has cuased nothing but problems sence its formation.

Last: The people of the USA think that canada is behind them, i hate to break it to you guys, but other then money, most educated (High school+) middle aged and lower have no loyalty to the states. I could goto my college tommorow and get a 90% vote in favor of breaking alliance with the US. You guys love to piss off the world. Stop playing police of the world, or you will go the way of the romans.

Who here thinks that Iran getting nukes is a good idea, and why?

Last: The people of the USA think that canada is behind them, i hate to break it to you guys, but other then money, most educated (High school+) middle aged and lower have no loyalty to the states. I could goto my college tommorow and get a 90% vote in favor of breaking alliance with the US. You guys love to piss off the world. Stop playing police of the world, or you will go the way of the romans.
Oh you deserve applause don't you?

First off, it matters not what your peers say.

Secondly, your alliance is not with the U.S. NATO is an alliance between Canada, the U.S., and a good majority of Europe.

I'd really wait and see for something of that nature to happen before I could make conclusions.
I must say I wouldn't want to see it at all.

I bet some portion of the members would pussy out or come up with lame excuse for not providing full support if it meant full-out large scale conflict. It's only in those times where you can really see if someone fulfills their obligations.
What do you think Europe is? The place bloody well invented international treaties.
The German constitution (Germany being the only country I can reliably talk about) says that the Bundeswehr is a defensive army, and is integrated into NATO.
NATO says an attack on any member is an attack on all members, ergo, such a war would be defensive in nature. Ergo, the Bundeswehr would go to war.

Every European country continues to emphasise how important the relationship with the US is to them.

Every European nation has said repeatedly that they do not want Iran to have nukes, and Jacques Chirac has been one of the most vocal people to repeatedly call for UNSC sanctions. He has lost his patience to a degree, and only his cabinet and the prospect of the Chinese and Russians vetoing anything have held him back.

So, if even Germany and France would go to war, I'd like you to find a country that wouldn't.

You mean like in WWI when alliances brought the world to massive warfare because one little guy got killed in one small country?

The era of conventional warfare went out with Hiroshima. In addition, this is no longer a time of strong nationalism. People really aren't into the notion of dying for the motherland so much. Everyone's out to save their own asses. And facing nuclear annihilation, people won't be so quick to deploy the troops. I mean, look at the Falklands conflict. There certainly wasn't a flurry of German and Danish troops and battleships deployed to aid the British, IIRC. The United States was trying to play politics with Latin America as well because of other treaties, so we were of little help. Remember, there is no supreme authority over the nations of the world, and strength is the law. Not every nation will keep its word, and that has been true of all nations at some point in their history.

The US does not want any other state to have Nukes for the simple reason that it cannot defend itself VS them.

Neither can any other nation. Your point is? Several countries already have them, including some not so friendly with the U.S. Like China

One could say that that kind of thinking will someday limit the space exporation in the near future.
M'kay. Sure. Whatever. :confused:
The US or for that matter any one else in the world has NO right to say what nations should and should not have.
Ok. So you think it would be ok for the U.S. (or somebody else) to develop airborne biological weapons engineered to kill people with certain specific gene markers, thus enabling extermination of anyone of a particular race...like arabs. Alrightythen.
Also, in my mind, Isreal is a war mongering mistake of a state.
Hmm. You have no sense of history or politics, do you? Israel was ATTACKED by pretty much all of the middle east. The nation has been on the defensive since it was formed. They did manage to kick some butt, in about 7 days. You see, Israel buys top technology from the U.S. and the U.K. and has arguable the best trained armed forces in the world because they know they are surrounded by hostile nations, and are under attack EVERY DAY.

I could goto my college tommorow and get a 90% vote in favor of breaking alliance with the US.
Hmmm.. well, 90% of college students in the U.S. want the drinking age lowered to 18, and want pot legal, but that doesn't mean 90% of the U.S. population wants that too. There were some college students in China a few years back. They wanted democracy, there was this big media frenzy, some guy stood up to a tank...but come to find out they were just extremist college kids, and China is still Socialist.

Learn some facts n00b.

So, if even Germany and France would go to war, I'd like you to find a country that wouldn't.

Every situation is different, and the politics leading up to whatever happens will have influence on what does happen. That's all I'm saying. I don't believe that in any given situation all of NATO will fulfill their obligations.

I mean, look at the Falklands conflict. There certainly wasn't a flurry of German and Danish troops and battleships deployed to aid the British, IIRC.
The British pretty explicitly asked for this to be handled by them, and not by NATO. At the time, it would have been an out-of-area operation for NATO, and Thatcher was eager to demonstrate the strength of Britain anyways - having the war won for you by foreigners wouldn't have made for very good propaganda.

The British pretty explicitly asked for this to be handled by them, and not by NATO. At the time, it would have been an out-of-area operation for NATO, and Thatcher was eager to demonstrate the strength of Britain anyways - having the war won for you by foreigners wouldn't have made for very good propaganda.

I would assume that even at that time NATO obligations would apply to territories of the nations whether they were located within the areas of the Northern Atlantic or not. I would assume that an invasion of US Hawaii in the Pacific or (formerly) British Hong Kong would entail an invocation of the NATO articles as well. And as far as Britain going alone, as I understood, they were a little sore about the US, as well as other countries, not going for enough in clarifying positions and showing solidarity with Britain.

Anywho, I personally figured an international coalition of forces would be just as impressive to citizens as long as it wasn't the foreign nations that primarily did most of the fighting. The British were more than happy to accept French intelligence for disabling Argentine missles, IIRC. They didn't want to do everything alone.

Every situation is different, and the politics leading up to whatever happens will have influence on what does happen. That's all I'm saying. I don't believe that in any given situation all of NATO will fulfill their obligations.
I'd say that the politics of getting nuked are pretty much the same always. The only case may be if the nuke was used by Terrorists, and not a state, because then it would have to be made certain first whether and if, which country could be held responsible.

I would assume that even at that time NATO obligations would apply to territories of the nations whether they were located within the areas of the Northern Atlantic or not. I would assume that an invasion of US Hawaii in the Pacific or (formerly) British Hong Kong would entail an invocation of the NATO articles as well.
True, but the Soviets were still around then. NATO was to fight in the European theatre, and that was what it was designed for.
So there was such a thing as an out-of-area operation, but today this concept has changed, and so NATO works globally. After 9/11, that clause was invoked, and the attack was considered to be an attack on all member nations.
The result: everyone went along to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.

And as far as Britain going alone, as I understood, they were a little sore about the US, as well as other countries, not going for enough in clarifying positions and showing solidarity with Britain.
As you said, Reagan wanted to play "Risk", and had an alliance with the Argentinians, so they sorta stayed neutral (but supplied satellite images and so on).

Anywho, I personally figured an international coalition of forces would be just as impressive to citizens as long as it wasn't the foreign nations that primarily did most of the fighting. The British were more than happy to accept French intelligence for disabling Argentine missles, IIRC. They didn't want to do everything alone.
You'd have to ask someone a little older, and a little more British for that. Falklands happened three years before I was born, so I have no idea how it was marketed in the UK.
But I do know that Thatcher used this war to whip up patriotism in Britain, when she wasn't achieving much otherwise. Sure, they would accept intelligence and so on, they want to win afterall, but AFAIK Thatcher was pushing this very much along the lines of "Look, Britain is still a super-duper major world power!".

World peace, or at least relative stability, depends upon a balance of power. If the scales of world power tip to one nation over others, then inevitably that power will be abused to the extend of the shift. This is obviously the case with the US, so it is really in everyones best interests that Iran and other such countries rearm.

Only as long as the investment pours in. No money, no troops. The population arent even supportive of the Iraq effort.



They gave back what they had illegally occupied with 8,000 settlers on stolen Arab land so they could take the 30,000 troops it took to protect them and use them to strengthen their hold on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They didn't do it for the good of their health.

They inflame the situation by their continuing presence outside their 1967 borders, and clearly showing the double standard the US uses in international affairs.

Thats such crap, Israel was legit in its taking of those lands. The Arab countries attacked Israel, Israel fights back, Israel beats them, Israel gets their land, Arabs bitch.... how is that illegal? Spoils of war m'boy

Thank you for your well thought out statement, presenting different views, opinions, and facts on this subject.
I am over joyed to know that you are not like others in that you only spit out a sentence or two of your opinion and hope everyone takes it as an intellectual view point. Those people are soooo infantile!
My opinion: Since Iran is a constitutional Islamic Republic, and has engaged in an anti-Western course, it is only best for America, the U.N., or NATO to give it a hard time.Thank you for your well thought out statement, presenting different views, opinions, and facts on this subject.

I am over joyed to know that you are not like others in that you only spit out a sentence or two of your opinion and hope everyone takes it as an intellectual view point. Those people are soooo infantile!

Non-Proliferation Treatyhow about:Noth Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel... etc

how about:Noth Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel... etc

oh see, no, The US wants nothing to do with those guys:

North korea: well, they have what the largest standing army (or 2nd i think) yah, you can't really tell them what to do.

India and Pakistan: personly i think the US is hoping they kill each other off.

Israel: well, thats thier friend in the Middle east, and before the "iraq war" (see: veitnam part 2) the only real US friendly state in the gulf.

World peace, or at least relative stability, depends upon a balance of power. If the scales of world power tip to one nation over others, then inevitably that power will be abused to the extend of the shift. This is obviously the case with the US, so it is really in everyones best interests that Iran and other such countries rearm.
Because WW1 and WW2 were HAPPY FUN TIMES!

I'd give you the link to the BBC article talking about how the 20th century has seen the least amount of wars in history, and how Britain and France are the two top nations that participate in wars throughout the 20th century...buuuuut I can't find it. I did make a topic about it somewhere between December and November but I can't find it.

I'd like to see the nation that thinks it can put the nuclear genie back inside the bottle, so to speak.

World peace, or at least relative stability, depends upon a balance of power. If the scales of world power tip to one nation over others, then inevitably that power will be abused to the extend of the shift. This is obviously the case with the US, so it is really in everyones best interests that Iran and other such countries rearm.
During WWI and WWII, America was the most powefull nation on earth.

Still is.


So you undermine your own argument. Power isn't shifted toward the superpower, crazyness is shifted toward the newcomer.

lol, I can't believe you want a nuclear middle east.

During WWI and WWII, America was the most powefull nation on earth.

Still is.


So you undermine your own argument. Power isn't shifted toward the superpower, crazyness is shifted toward the newcomer.

lol, I can't believe you want a nuclear middle east.

First: The Middle East is nuclear as Israel has nukes. Even if they are not a declared nuclear nation.

Second: America only became the hegemonic power it is today after WWII because it didn't get destroyed in the bombing raids and actually had its economy improve as a result of the war. You could make a case that is had hegemony after WWI but with all the English colonies and with England winning the war they probably had hegemony although it was much smaller.

Third: Power is usually shifted toward the most powerful person or nation. If it is not then that would mean we live in a feudal society and that would be the end of the world. (If you don't trust me, read a guy called Ferguson on this)

Fourth: Iran having nukes would be bad for Israel and if the U.S. want to say that they are going to kill people its ok. Anyway the Iranian government will not be in power much longer as the younger generation seems to have more and more resentment of their government.

I'd like to see the nation that thinks it can put the nuclear genie back inside the bottle, so to speak.

My guess would be the one who wipes everyone else out first. :p

Sometimes it helps if you visualize a neighborhood with about 100 houses.

A handful of the houses have owners who have managed to plant explosives under each other's houses. They sit in their living rooms with their fingers on the detonators, wondering if someone is going to push the plunger.

Now imagine that all 100 home-owners have explosives planted under each other's houses. Nervous yet?

Now imagine that out of those 100 home-owners, there are at least two who are insane.

Get the picture?

That's why non-proliferation is a good thing.

Only as long as the investment pours in. No money, no troops. The population arent even supportive of the Iraq effort.



They gave back what they had illegally occupied with 8,000 settlers on stolen Arab land so they could take the 30,000 troops it took to protect them and use them to strengthen their hold on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They didn't do it for the good of their health.

They inflame the situation by their continuing presence outside their 1967 borders, and clearly showing the double standard the US uses in international affairs.
Are you retarded? The Arabs started the 1967 war through the blockade of the Straights of Tiran. THey also had a plan to strike Israel and cripple them. The Mossad discovered the plan and preemptively attacked the Arabs. If the ARabs won the war you know damn well that the Arabs wouldn't let Israel keep their borders so why the hell should the Arabs be allowed to go on like nothing happened when they started the fucking war? Israel won that war.

By your logic, we should give the whole SW USA to Mexico.

Are you retarded? The Arabs started the 1967 war through the blockade of the Straights of Tiran.
Meh, are you actively trying to insult the Israeli Military? Because that's what you're doing.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9203116&postcount=87

how about:Noth Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel... etc

India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed NPT.

NPT had so locust standi with these countries.

Iran is still a NPT signatory.

Meh, are you actively trying to insult the Israeli Military? Because that's what you're doing.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9203116&postcount=87So you are saying that the Egyptians could threaten Israel's right to exist by blockading a key port, which is an act of war. Nasser was planning war. The few divisions he sent weren't enough to do it at that point, but the Mossad did uncover upcomiing plans so Israel struck first and kicked their fucking asses. If you lose land in war its lost. ANd if you start it as the Arabs did, you don't deserve to get it back. By your logic, Germany should disband into 15 different kingdoms again. After all, Bismarck didn't unite Germany through diplomacy alone.

ANd if you start it as the Arabs did, you don't deserve to get it back. By your logic, Germany should disband into 15 different kingdoms again. After all, Bismarck didn't unite Germany through diplomacy alone.
If you look, all areas that Germany may actually have conquered have long since been given back, with interest.

But that's not the point. The point is that if there is going to be peace, it will have to be with both an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. And it must be a powerful Palestinian state, strong enough to end Hamas and all the rest of them.
For that reason, at some point Israel will have to be the bigger man, and give something up. At some point, the moderate PA will have to have a victory, substantial enough to justify its existence in the eyes of its people.

If you asked me, I'd hope that at some point we could all start over at the 1948 UN plan. But since that may be somewhat unrealistic, I would argue that both Gaza and the Westbank must be completely Palestinian - no settlements. They must be connected, perhaps with a tunnel, and that connection cannot be subject to Israeli controls.
And Jerusalem will have to be neutral ground. It was conquered in a war, that is true. But Israel, IMHO, is a strong enough country, physically and mentally, to be able to give it up for the sake of peace.

India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed NPT.

Iran is still a NPT signatory.North Korea had signed it too.

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:
Other nations can have them as long as there is it is reasonable to presume that they will use them responsibly. Iran has called for Israel to be wiped from the map. Allowing them to have nuclear weapons basically gives them the tools they need to accomplish that goal.

If a guy is screaming about how he's going to murder his neighbor you don't hand him a pistol.

If a man threatens to kill you and your family alot, do you want him to have a hand gun, especially if he lives a few houses down? Same concept goes for Iran. So far, the US has been responsible enough to not use any of its 1000+ nukes. It doesn't openly threaten to wipe any nation off the face of the map. It gets to keep its nukes. Heck, the US has even been slowly disarming itself over the years when cold war tentions began to soften. It got rid of some of its strategic bombers and left the destroyed planes on the ground so Soviet/Russian satelites could photograph them. Those planes were designed for one reason:to nuke. It dismantled some of its nukes.

Iran, on the other hand, has threatened to wipe off Isreal off the face of the map. It's "peaceful" nuclear ambitions are extremely suspicious. It's like some guy going "I'm gonna kill you. You gonna die. Can I borrow your knife? I promise I won't stab you. I'm just going to cut some meat. I'm gonna freak'n kill you. Die, you mother Fv@%3r. I'm gonna kill you." They promise peace and threaten death. Nuclear capabilities are for nations with sane leaders. It's like how guns and knives are not for those whose lights are on, but nobodies home, if you catch my drift.

If a man threatens to kill you and your family alot, do you want him to have a hand gun, especially if he lives a few houses down? Same concept goes for Iran. So far, the US has been responsible enough to not use any of its 1000+ nukes. It doesn't openly threaten to wipe any nation off the face of the map. It gets to keep its nukes. Heck, the US has even been slowly disarming itself over the years when cold war tentions began to soften. It got rid of some of its strategic bombers and left the destroyed planes on the ground so Soviet/Russian satelites could photograph them. Those planes were designed for one reason:to nuke. It dismantled some of its nukes.

Iran, on the other hand, has threatened to wipe off Isreal off the face of the map. It's "peaceful" nuclear ambitions are extremely suspicious. It's like some guy going "I'm gonna kill you. You gonna die. Can I borrow your knife? I promise I won't stab you. I'm just going to cut some meat. I'm gonna freak'n kill you. Die, you mother Fv@%3r. I'm gonna kill you." They promise peace and threaten death. Nuclear capabilities are for nations with sane leaders. It's like how guns and knives are not for those whose lights are on, but nobodies home, if you catch my drift.
Iran has promised that their nuclear program is for peacefull energy generation. They are lying. There is new evidence available that they are actively seeking nuclear weapons technology and expertise.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-04T021533Z_01_DIT407905_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-REPORT.xml

Why would anyone trust a nation that elected a maniac like Ahmenijad, who openly calls for genocide against Israel and has clearly been caught lying about his nuclear weapon ambitions, with WMD?

So far, the US has been responsible enough to not use any of its 1000+ nukes...you live in a twisted dimention...dont you?

War is peace.
Hate is Love.
etc

Why would anyone trust a nation that elected a maniac like Ahmenijad,..Who would trust a nation that has actually nuked children?

Not to mention the election of a maniac like Bush.. twice

Who would trust a nation that has actually nuked children?
Because in doing so it prevented the deaths of many more people, and it hasn't nuked anyone since.

Because in doing so it prevented the deaths of many more people, and it hasn't nuked anyone since.yes we nuked Japanese school children to save Our soldiers lives..

The FACT remains
only one nation has ever used nukes.. killing civilian Men, Women and children..

that moron President has never said he would Nuke Israel.. he has never said he would used even conventional forces to attack Israel.. (Iran would lose anyways)

All he has stated is the long repeating policy of Iran.. Israel should have never been created in Palestinean land.

..and I happen to agree with that.

By your logic, Germany should disband into 15 different kingdoms again. After all, Bismarck didn't unite Germany through diplomacy alone.

By your logic the poles should have been left to their fate in 1939, likewise the kuwaitis theirs. The Palestinians have been deprived off enough.

And while Iran may not be the most trustworthy of states with the bomb, neither is the Israeli one.

Just one quick thing that everybody forgets:

The Palestinians had a chance to have a state according to the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan which created Israel but they refused.

Their fault for not taking the oppurtunity then.

Let it be damned that they thought that 5 Arab armies of 5 different Arab countries would be able to defeat the little settlements of Jews.

We'll see how level Europe wants the playing field when Iran declares them all supporters of Israel and makes it a goal on their agenda to destroy them. :)

It's not like Iran can use nuclear weapons against America. Iran CAN use nuclear weapons against the Euro's.


At this time, there are no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon or even the capacity to build one.

But there are evidences that Iran hasn't long-range missiles to attack Europe.

Even if they obtain a nuclear weapon, the only enemy (if the regional pattern doesn't change) country they'll can attack is Israel.

But believe me, if they CAN attack ISRAEL, they will. That's the real threath

The Palestinians had a chance to have a state according to the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan which created Israel but they refused.

Their fault for not taking the opportunity then.I would have refused too..

If a Foreign Power comes.. and install a new Country with foreigners.. inside my mother-Land.

...and offers me a piece of my former country.. I would think it is unacceptable and probably become a Guerrilla/Freedom-Fighter too (or Terrorist if you wanna call it like that)

At this time, there are no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon or even the capacity to build one...regardless.. Iran should borrow a page from the North-Korea Sovereignty book.. And kiss the NPT goodbye.

Or even better.. they should have done like India and Pakistan... Never sign that worthless piece of paper.

I've said this somewhere else, but...


A conventional war in the middle east is better than a nuclear Iran.

The leaders of Iran are freaking psycho's, and should not have nukes.

The difference between the middle east and North Korea is that NK is actually a threat right now. Israel alone (Ok, maybe with some US help ;) ) could handle their own in the middle east, conventionally speaking.

yes we nuked Japanese school children to save Our soldiers lives..

Do you know what the Japanese were doing towards the end of the war? Handing out weapons to every civilian. Now, do you think killing off well over 1 million civilians in a land operation is better than killing off a couple hundred thousand with the bombs? As well as the Japanese losing less people, much less American soldiers would have died.

The FACT remains
only one nation has ever used nukes.. killing civilian Men, Women and children..

We used it to show off its power and prevent much more people from dying from a large scale land campaign. By showing how destructive it was, governments would be more reluctant to "test it out." It was also used to frighten Russia, but that's another story for another time.

that moron President has never said he would Nuke Israel.. he has never said he would used even conventional forces to attack Israel.. (Iran would lose anyways)

What do you think someone who wants to remove your country is going to do with nuclear bombs?

The only reason he hasn't actually said "I'm going to nuke Israel," is because Israel and the U.S. would interpret that as an act of war. He's a coward and doesn't want the two best militaries in the world after him.

All he has stated is the long repeating policy of Iran.. Israel should have never been created in Palestinean land.

Palestine should never have been created in Israeli land. It was the Jews' first, they should have it. That's like me going on a long vacation, coming back, and finding that someone has been living in my house during my absence. I guess the house would belong to the person who took it while I was away then? :rolleyes:

..and I happen to agree with that.

I guess you have the right to your opinion.

...and I happen to disagree with it.

The difference between the middle east and North Korea is that NK is actually a threat right now. The difference between you and you.. is that you understand what you are saying... but you don't.

America sees itself as stopping other nations having nuclear weaponary. But my question is, why can't others nations have it when they do? Its just assinine.:confused:

Why would we let other nations have nukes? They can use them against us.

Palestine should never have been created in Israeli land. It was the Jews' first, they should have it. That's like me going on a long vacation, coming back, and finding that someone has been living in my house during my absence. I guess the house would belong to the person who took it while I was away then?You would have to prove you just left that land "for a long vacation".. and not abandoned it...

and until you prove it.. I would stay in my Land(in this case Palestine).. and you would have to Wait in europe.. or the US..

If you take me out by force.. Then I would fight back.. with whatever possible means.. Including Guerrilla warfare..

How long was your so called "Vacation" BTW??

Why would we let other nations have nukes? They can use them against us.Who would we let other nations have weapons.. any weapons?

Lets just declare that any Non-US-Citizen holding any firearm will be executed on the spot..

You would have to prove you just left that land "for a long vacation".. and not abandoned it...

and until you prove it.. I would stay in my Land(in this case Palestine).. and you would have to Wait in europe.. or the US..

If you take me out by force.. Then I would fight back.. with whatever possible means.. Including Guerrilla warfare..

How long was your so called "Vacation" BTW??
They didn't abandon the land. If you knew any history (you obviously don't) you would know that the Israelis were conquered by the Romans around the year 70 after fighting a long war. The Israelis held out until the end. They kept fighting in Masada for years while under seige and fought to the last man there before the survivors committed suicide to avoid slavery.

When the Romans won, they scattered most of the Jews across their empire. This is known as the diaspora.

The Jews have kept a presence in the land for the past 2 millenia. The city of Jerusalem had a large number of Jews living in it. Remember that many were killed during the Crusades. In fact, in the 1880s, the city was a majority Jewish. The Jews also had settlements across other parts of Israel for the past 2000 years. There was a city in Northern Israel who's name escapes me that was the home of the Kabalists for centuries.

The "Palestinians" never really settled in Israel. They were wanderers who never set up permanent homes until the Jews came in the 1st Aliyah. The Jews set up Kibbutzim that provided jobs for the Arabs who then settled around the Kibbutzim. The "Palestinians" never even thought of themselves as a seperate people. They considered themselves to be Jordanians. There is no difference between a "Palestinian" and a Jordanian. The word "Palestinian" was invented after the 1948 war when the Arabs used the people who willingly left their homes to clear the way for an Arab invasion for political gain.

By abandon you mean kick out? The Romans had mass expulsions of Jews, and those that stayed in Israel died. After the fall of the Romans, the Byzantium Empire took over. After that, the Arabs took control of Israel and have had it until 1948.

From answers.com:

Guer·ril·la
n.

[Sp., lit., a little war, skirmish, dim. of guerra war, fr. OHG. werra discord, strife. See War.]

1. An irregular mode of carrying on war, by the constant attacks of independent bands, adopted in the north of Spain during the Peninsular war.

2. One who carries on, or assists in carrying on, irregular warfare; especially, a member of an independent band engaged in predatory excursions in war time.

Note: The term guerrilla is the diminutive of the Spanish word guerra, war, and means petty war, that is, war carried on by detached parties; generally in the mountains. . . . A guerrilla party means, an irregular band of armed men, carrying on an irregular war, not being able, according to their character as a guerrilla party, to carry on what the law terms a regular war. F. Lieder.

The Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, specifically target civilians. They blow up cafes, school buses, movie theaters, etc. That is not guerilla warfare, just terrorism.

And the analagous vacation for the Jews was a couple thousand years long, to answer your last question. Granted, that's longer than a "vacation," but it is the same principle.

yes we nuked Japanese school children to save Our soldiers lives..

The FACT remains
only one nation has ever used nukes.. killing civilian Men, Women and children..

that moron President has never said he would Nuke Israel.. he has never said he would used even conventional forces to attack Israel.. (Iran would lose anyways)

All he has stated is the long repeating policy of Iran.. Israel should have never been created in Palestinean land.

..and I happen to agree with that.
How many civilian lives would have been lost in an invasion of Japan? Especially if you consider that the civilian population had been told to resist the American invasion you have to admit that huge numbers of Japanese would have been killed.

He said that he would "wipe Israel off the map".

What should or should not have happened is irrelevant. Israel is where it is.

By your logic the poles should have been left to their fate in 1939, likewise the kuwaitis theirs. The Palestinians have been deprived off enough.

And while Iran may not be the most trustworthy of states with the bomb, neither is the Israeli one.
Nobody has stated that Iran should be wiped out. Hamas, Iran, and other middle eastern organizations and nations have expressed the desire to destroy Israel. Israel's nukes guarantee that it won't be destroyed. Iran's would only be used for destruction.

I would have refused too..

If a Foreign Power comes.. and install a new Country with foreigners.. inside my mother-Land.

...and offers me a piece of my former country.. I would think it is unacceptable and probably become a Guerrilla/Freedom-Fighter too (or Terrorist if you wanna call it like that)
Palestine was never a country.

The Jews have kept a presence in the land for the past 2 millenia. The city of Jerusalem had a large number of Jews living in it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
That proves nothing. Every post you've made has made you look more and more ignorant of the facts.

Why don't you post facts yourself? Besides if you use wikipedia as a source that is really bad. I could go on there in 2 seconds and change that page to say whatever the hell I want it to say.

OceanDrive3, answer me one question. Where was the nation of Palestine when the Arabs had sovereinty over the land from 1948-1967?

The "Palestinians" never really settled in Israel. They were wanderers who never set up permanent homes until the Jews came in the 1st Aliyah. The Jews set up Kibbutzim that provided jobs for the Arabs who then settled around the Kibbutzim. The "Palestinians" never even thought of themselves as a seperate people. They considered themselves to be Jordanians. There is no difference between a "Palestinian" and a Jordanian. The word "Palestinian" was invented after the 1948 war when the Arabs used the people who willingly left their homes to clear the way for an Arab invasion for political gain.

How do the 49% Jordanians distinguish between themselves and the 51% Palestinian refugees in Jordan? Do they swap places every other week?

Your statements about the Palestinians ironically echo classic anti-Jewish anti-semtism. Approximately 750,000 Palestinians were expelled in the Cataclysm of 1948. The mass expulsion is a matter of UN record. Please try to keep the lies to a minimum. If you want to debate it in full and be made look even more foolish please please please start a thread on the subject.

The Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, specifically target civilians. They blow up cafes, school buses, movie theaters, etc. That is not guerilla warfare, just terrorism..

When the IDF let the christian militias into the refugee camps in Lebanon, what was that?

What do you call firing into an unarmed protest?
http:///www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1220749,00.html

I could go on there in 2 seconds and change that page to say whatever the hell I want it to say.

And I've no doubt given the opporunity you would. The facts as they stand certainly do nothing to bolster your case.

yes we nuked Japanese school children to save Our soldiers lives..
The FACT remains
only one nation has ever used nukes.. killing civilian Men, Women and children..


We save the lives of millions. Japan would have fought to the death or very close to it. The "civilians" would have fought to the death or been killed by there own millitary just like they did on Okenawa (sp). Learn some history.

The best strategy is to continue importing their educated individuals, their pretty men and their pretty women. Finally they will get so frustrated, they may try to launch an attack on Israel (the Arabian nations tried that before the Persians did, each time they started the war, each time they lost). Israel will probably ward off an attack, laugh their asses off, then get serious and alert the NATO. Then Iran will even lose its Russian friends, and the Chinese still need to lear where countries outside China really are, so they are really on theirselves.

The youth in the country hates their own government, to start a revolution we will drop CDs with western music. The government of Iran will get sick enough and finally lose convidence of their closest supporters. Allah probably turned its back on them big time long ago anyway.

The Americans are the World Police Force, didn't you know?

Always a good idea to have a democratic superpower in the world to help police it. I'll use the example of the Royal Navy during the glory days of the British Empire protecting trade on the high seas.

Israel should have never been created in Palestinean land.

..and I happen to agree with that.

You do realize that Jordan is 70-80& Palestinean? So who would you say got more land then? The Jews or the Arabs (Palestineans)? Because according to my map Jordan is a hell of alot bigger then Israel.

Who would we let other nations have weapons.. any weapons?

Lets just declare that any Non-US-Citizen holding any firearm will be executed on the spot..

Because we can invade every country on earth...

You see what I'm getting at here.

OceanDrive3, answer me one question. Where was the nation of Palestine when the Arabs had sovereinty over the land from 1948-1967?rite here
http://www.mideastweb.org/palcaliph1.htm

check the wikipedia page it has the answers...

wikipedia as a source that is really bad. I dont think soThat proves nothing. then ignore itEvery post you've made has made you look more and more ignorant of the facts.Its not my word its Wikipedia's ..and I say you are more ignorant than Wikipedia.
Why don't you post facts yourself? simple...because I do not know as much as Wikipedia.
I could go on there in 2 seconds and change that page to say whatever the hell I want it to say.that is so childish
:rolleyes:

You do realize that Jordan is 70-80& Palestinean? So who would you say got more land then? The Jews or the Arabs (Palestineans)? Because according to my map Jordan is a hell of alot bigger then Israel.So??? what is your point?

Canadians have a lot of Land.. does NOT mean they have to surrender a piece of Canada to a Group of foreigners Coming from Madagascar.

Russia has a lot of Land too.. Why didnt you create Israel in Russia?

So??? what is your point?

Canadians have a lot of Land.. does NOT mean they have to surrender a piece of Canada to a Group of foreigners Coming from Madagascar.

Russia has a lot of Land too.. Why didnt you create Israel in Russia?

My point is that there already is a Palestinian Nation, so why do you need another one?

You have to learn to accept it, Israel has a right to exist.

Also, you do realize that an Israeli and a Palestinian are the same thing? They both are human beings.

Learn some facts n00b.

Who uses n00b in a debate like this? (I know I know ...many do, but I digress). I'm sorry I just had to interject when I saw this. "n00b" is just the equivalent of saying "you're a doo doo head" on forums.

When many people use n00b or other phrases it usually screams how non l337 they are:). Just leave that stuff in Counterstrike, alrighty?

I'm sorry i just had to get that off my chest. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar

Who uses n00b in a debate like this? (I know I know ...many do, but I digress). I'm sorry I just had to interject when I saw this. "n00b" is just the equivalent of saying "you're a doo doo head" on forums.

When many people use n00b or other phrases it usually screams how non l337 they are:). Just leave that stuff in Counterstrike, alrighty?

I'm sorry i just had to get that off my chest. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar

It is even worse when people use "noob" in everyday conversation......it is meant for video games dumbasses!! I hate how people use the word "like" most of all.......but that is off topic so....I...will leave

You have to learn to accept it, Israel has a right to exist. Nothing is wrong with creating one jewish state.. or 2 or 3 Jewish states..

But Forcing the Palestinians out to create this one was a mistake...
This mistake has ended thousand of lives..
This mistake has caused incredible amounts of pain, suffering and hate.

~snip~


As for your debate about Wikipedia with IDF- I have to side with IDF on this one. Wiki not a vaid source. Try using it as a reference for a paper or project, and you will get an F. Since Wiki accepts submissions from anyone, and anyone can go in and claim that 2+2=3.14, it cannot be deemed reliable. I would venture to say that it's most effective use is in online culture, since there are not a lot of dictionaries that tell you what a Godwin is, but I still wouldn't trust it since I can go in and change Godwin to mean "an argument used by creationists that says they can win any argument, becausae God makes then Win".

Who uses n00b in a debate like this?...

I was trying to be emphatic. When someone doesn't provide any facts and says that we are taking things too seriously, and spouts complete nonsense...well, they must realize they can't survive in this forum.

And, by the way, I think you are a "doo doo head". :p

Wikipedia... anyone can go in and claim that 2+2=3.14, it cannot be deemed reliable. Prove it.

Go and claim that...
And post the Link that will prove that your 2+2=3.4 "Fact" is in Wikipedia

So??? what is your point?

Canadians have a lot of Land.. does NOT mean they have to surrender a piece of Canada to a Group of foreigners Coming from Madagascar.

Russia has a lot of Land too.. Why didnt you create Israel in Russia?
You've got to be kidding. Locating Israel in it's current position is the equivalent of giving the Leni Lenape Indians a chunk of land in New Jersey, their original homeland. It's not like giving some folks from Madagascar land in Canada.

... their original homeland. First There is no Proof they were the First people to live in Palestine.
___________________________________________________________
Second...

Palestine Timetable.

#1 For whatever reason.. The Jews left ...that land.

#2 the Palestinians took empty Lands and made their Home.

#3 The Zionists Used Terrorist, Politics, and other ugly Methods to Dispossess the Palestinians.

You do realize that Jordan is 70-80& Palestinean? So who would you say got more land then? The Jews or the Arabs (Palestineans)? Because according to my map Jordan is a hell of alot bigger then Israel.

Its about 51-52%. Those are refugees created by the expulsions of 1948 and 1967.

My point is that there already is a Palestinian Nation, so why do you need another one? .

There is not at present a palestinian state.

Locating Israel in it's current position is the equivalent of giving the Leni Lenape Indians a chunk of land in New Jersey.

Most Israelis are of European Azkhenazi descent. They are possibly middle eastern in the same sense white people are African.

Neither is the current problem the state of Israel as such, but rather its activities in the territories it has occupied since 1967.

First There is no Proof they were the First people to live in Palestine.
___________________________________________________________
Second...

Palestine Timetable.

#1 For whatever reason.. The Jews left ...that land.

#2 the Palestinians took empty Lands and made their Home.

#3 The Zionists Used Terrorist, Politics, and other ugly Methods to Dispossess the Palestinians.

Actually they bought the land back from arab land owners. But the Palestinians on the other hand are using terrorism and ugly methods to try to get the land back.

First There is no Proof they were the First people to live in Palestine.
___________________________________________________________
Second...

Palestine Timetable.

#1 For whatever reason.. The Jews left ...that land.

#2 the Palestinians took empty Lands and made their Home.

#3 The Zionists Used Terrorist, Politics, and other ugly Methods to Dispossess the Palestinians.
The Zionists used terrorism to drive the British out. They bought their land. The Palestinians decided to clear out when the arab armies surrounding Israel decided they were going to finish the job Hitler started. The Palestinians left with the hopes that they could take the land legally purchased and the land given to the Jews by the UN. Now they're crying about right of return. Fuck 'em.

Its about 51-52%. Those are refugees created by the expulsions of 1948 and 1967.



There is not at present a palestinian state.



Most Israelis are of European Azkhenazi descent. They are possibly middle eastern in the same sense white people are African.

Neither is the current problem the state of Israel as such, but rather its activities in the territories it has occupied since 1967.
Palestine was a part of Trans Jordan. Even the old Arab map that Oceandrive dug up earlier in the thread marks Palestine as being part of what is now Jordan. There is no difference between a Palestinian and a Jordanian. They're all just Arabs.

At present there is not a Palestinian state because the Palestinians can't get their shit together and stop attacking Israel long enough to vote in a government that can actually govern.

Palestine was a part of Trans Jordan. Even the old Arab map that Oceandrive dug up earlier in the thread marks Palestine as being part of what is now Jordan. There is no difference between a Palestinian and a Jordanian. They're all just Arabs.
Wikipedia Timeline

# 1901 - Fifth Zionist Congress establishes the Jewish National Fund.
# 1902 - Herzl publishes the novel Altneuland (Old-New Land), which takes place in Palestine.
# 1903 -1906 - More pogroms in Russia
# 1903 - Controversial Uganda Proposal for settlement in East Africa splits the 6th Zionist Congress. A committee is created to look into it.
# 1904 - 1914 - Second aliyah.
# 1917 - The British gain control of Palestine as the Ottoman Empire collapses in World War I.
# 1917 - The British issue the Balfour Declaration, lending support for "the establishment in Palestine for a national home for the Jewish people".
# 1918 - 1920 - More pogroms during Russian Civil War
# 1919 - 1923 - Third aliyah.
# 1920 - The San Remo conference in Italy establishes the British Mandate of Palestine.
# 1920 - Histadrut founded.
# 1920 - Haganah founded.
# 1921 - Chaim Weizmann becomes new President of the WZO at the 12th Zionist Congress (the first since World War I).
# 1921 - Autonomy is given to Transjordan under Crown Prince Abdullah. Jewish settlement is outlawed there.
# 1922 - The text from the San Remo Conference is confirmed by the League of Nations.
# 1923 - Britain gives the Golan Heights to the French mandate of Syria.
# 1924 - 1928 - Fourth aliyah.
# 1932 - 1939 - Fifth aliyah.
# 1933 - 1945 - Jews flee Germany because of persecution under the Nazi government. Jews are turned away because of the British limit on immigrants.
# 1936 - The British propose a partition between Jewish and Arab areas. It is accepted by the Zionists, but rejected by the Arab parties (See Jewish Defense Organizations).
# 1936 - 1939 - Great Uprising by Arabs against British rule and Jewish immigration.
# 1939 - The British government issues the 'White Paper' setting an absolute limit of 75,000 on future Jewish immigration to Palestine (See The White Paper).
# 1947 - On November 29, the United Nations approves partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. It is accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs (See [1] [2]).
# 1947 - November 30, guerrilla war starts between Jewish forces, centered around the Haganah and Palestinian Arab forces.
# 1948 - Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948
# 1948 - May 15. Five neighboring Arab countries invade, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war ensues.
# 1975 - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 equates Zionism with Racism.
# 1991 - The UN GA resolution 3379 is revoked by Resolution 4686.

Wikipedia Timeline

# 1901 - Fifth Zionist Congress establishes the Jewish National Fund.
# 1902 - Herzl publishes the novel Altneuland (Old-New Land), which takes place in Palestine.
# 1903 -1906 - More pogroms in Russia
# 1903 - Controversial Uganda Proposal for settlement in East Africa splits the 6th Zionist Congress. A committee is created to look into it.
# 1904 - 1914 - Second aliyah.
# 1917 - The British gain control of Palestine as the Ottoman Empire collapses in World War I.
# 1917 - The British issue the Balfour Declaration, lending support for "the establishment in Palestine for a national home for the Jewish people".
# 1918 - 1920 - More pogroms during Russian Civil War
# 1919 - 1923 - Third aliyah.
# 1920 - The San Remo conference in Italy establishes the British Mandate of Palestine.
# 1920 - Histadrut founded.
# 1920 - Haganah founded.
# 1921 - Chaim Weizmann becomes new President of the WZO at the 12th Zionist Congress (the first since World War I).
# 1921 - Autonomy is given to Transjordan under Crown Prince Abdullah. Jewish settlement is outlawed there.
# 1922 - The text from the San Remo Conference is confirmed by the League of Nations.
# 1923 - Britain gives the Golan Heights to the French mandate of Syria.
# 1924 - 1928 - Fourth aliyah.
# 1932 - 1939 - Fifth aliyah.
# 1933 - 1945 - Jews flee Germany because of persecution under the Nazi government. Jews are turned away because of the British limit on immigrants.
# 1936 - The British propose a partition between Jewish and Arab areas. It is accepted by the Zionists, but rejected by the Arab parties (See Jewish Defense Organizations).
# 1936 - 1939 - Great Uprising by Arabs against British rule and Jewish immigration.
# 1939 - The British government issues the 'White Paper' setting an absolute limit of 75,000 on future Jewish immigration to Palestine (See The White Paper).
# 1947 - On November 29, the United Nations approves partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. It is accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs (See [1] [2]).
# 1947 - November 30, guerrilla war starts between Jewish forces, centered around the Haganah and Palestinian Arab forces.
# 1948 - Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948
# 1948 - May 15. Five neighboring Arab countries invade, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war ensues.
# 1975 - The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 equates Zionism with Racism.
# 1991 - The UN GA resolution 3379 is revoked by Resolution 4686.
Sorry, what's your point? I don't get it.

Prove it.
Go and claim that...
And post the Link that will prove that your 2+2=3.4 "Fact" is in Wikipedia
On Wikipedia, you can edit articles right now, even without logging in.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes.
Don't be afraid to edit articles—anyone can edit, and we encourage you to be bold (but please don't vandalize)! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it.

You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source.
I would go ahead and make an article that says that 2+2=3.14, but you know, I don't feel like it. If I was going to waste ten minutes, it would be on something worthwile, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Or you can go here, and see what Wiki has to say about OceanDrive3's opinion on Israel. (hopefully it won't be edited!)

edit: somebody ratted me out, because my addition was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict

Actually they bought the land back from arab land owners. But the Palestinians on the other hand are using terrorism and ugly methods to try to get the land back.

Really?....shame that Moshe Dayan said
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

According to the UN mediator in 1948 the Arab population was expelled by threat, violence and rumour of same. He was subsequently assasinated by the "Stern Gang".

They bought their land.

A lie. The vast majority was seized in 1948. If you are going to make up facts, please remember that some of us do actually know what we're talking about, while others have access to independent proven data.

There is no difference between a Palestinian and a Jordanian. They're all just Arabs..

They are different nations. Were they indistinguishable then why does the CIA factbook mention the large Palestinian refugee population of 1,740,170 caused by the ethnic cleansing of 1948 as well as the 800,000 caused by the seizure of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem in 1967?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html

Really?....shame that Moshe Dayan said
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

According to the UN mediator in 1948 the Arab population was expelled by threat, violence and rumour of same. He was subsequently assasinated by the "Stern Gang".



A lie. The vast majority was seized in 1948. If you are going to make up facts, please remember that some of us do actually know what we're talking about, while others have access to independent proven data.



They are different nations. Were they indistinguishable then why does the CIA factbook mention the large Palestinian refugee population of 1,740,170 caused by the ethnic cleansing of 1948 as well as the 800,000 caused by the seizure of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem in 1967?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html
Look at the map posted earlier by Oceandrive. http://www.mideastweb.org/palcaliph1.htm There is no border between Palestine and Jordan. Also the British borders don't recognize an independent Palestine. It was part of Transjordan. Palestine has no history as a nation. It was a region in Jordan.

Oh, and I didn't make up facts. Jews did buy land from Palestinians. The Palestinians fled before the Arab armies invaded in 1948 in order to wait until the Jews were exterminated and claim back all their land. No wonder Israel doesn't want to let them back in.

Look at the map posted earlier by Oceandrive. http://www.mideastweb.org/palcaliph1.htm There is no border between Palestine and Jordan. Also the British borders don't recognize an independent Palestine. Oh, and I didn't make up facts. Jews did buy land from Palestinians. The Palestinians fled before the Arab armies invaded in 1948 in order to wait until the Jews were exterminated and claim back all their land. No wonder Israel doesn't want to let them back in.

Neither the British or other colonial powers referred to the demographics of the areas they carved up between them, hence the Kurds being caught between so many states after the fall of the Ottomans. A tiny percentage of land was bought by the zionists, but as stated earlier the majority was seized after the expulsions of 1948. Your statement refering to this deliberate Palestinian flight has no basis in fact and is merely an ugly, undocumented lie.

Again, I ask - why does the CIA make a distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians if no such distinction exists?

Neither the British or other colonial powers referred to the demographics of the areas they carved up between them, hence the Kurds being caught between so many states after the fall of the Ottomans. A tiny percentage of land was bought by the zionists, but as stated earlier the majority was seized after the expulsions of 1948. Your statement refering to this deliberate Palestinian flight has no basis in fact and is merely an ugly, undocumented lie.

Again, I ask - why does the CIA make a distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians if no such distinction exists?
I don't care what distinctions the CIA makes. Look at Oceandrive's map and see what distinctions Muslims made before European collonial control of the region.

In Jerusalem, Arab riots broke out on November 30 and December 1 1947. Palestinian irregulars cut off the supply of food, water and fuel to Jerusalem during a long siege that began in late 1947. Fighting and violence broke out immediately throughout the country, including ambushes of transportation, the Jerusalem blockade, riots such as the Haifa refinery riots, and massacres that took place at Gush Etzion (by Palestinians) and in Deir Yassin (by Jews). Arab Palestinians began leaving their towns and villages to escape the fighting. Notably, most of the Arab population of Haifa left in March and April of 1948, despite pleas by both Jewish and British officials to stay.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Yeah, undocumented lie. Right.

Again, I ask - why does the CIA make a distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians if no such distinction exists?

Because Jordanians are lawful citizens of Jordan. Palestinians are unlawful squatters and/or terrorists who have refused their Jordanian citizenship. (which is still theirs if the want it- all they have to do is turn up at the border and Jordan will grant them citizenship) But instead, they take handout money from other nations and rather than move, or build schools, homes, and hospitals- their leadership spends all the money on bombs and propoganda and lets the populace live in refugee camps.

Because Jordanians are lawful citizens of Jordan. Palestinians are unlawful squatters and/or terrorists who have refused their Jordanian citizenship. (which is still theirs if the want it- all they have to do is turn up at the border and Jordan will grant them citizenship) But instead, they take handout money from other nations and rather than move, or build schools, homes, and hospitals- their leadership spends all the money on bombs and propoganda and lets the populace live in refugee camps.
"Here's a puzzle: How do Palestinian refugees differ from the other 135 million 20th-century refugees?
Answer: In every other instance, the pain of dispossession, statelessness, and poverty has diminished over time. Refugees eventually either resettled, returned home or died. Their children - whether living in South Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Germany or the United States - then shed the refugee status and joined the mainstream.
Not so the Palestinians. For them, the refugee status continues from one generation to the next, creating an ever-larger pool of anguish and discontent.
Several factors explain this anomaly but one key component - of all things - is the United Nations' bureaucratic structure. It contains two organizations focused on refugee affairs, each with its own definition of "refugee":
The U.N. High Commission for Refugees applies this term worldwide to someone who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted . . . is outside the country of his nationality." Being outside the country of his nationality implies that descendants of refugees are not refugees. Cubans who flee the Castro regime are refugees, but not so their Florida-born children who lack Cuban nationality. Afghans who flee their homeland are refugees, but not their Iranian-born children. And so on.
The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), an organization set up uniquely for Palestinian refugees in 1949, defines Palestinian refugees differently from all other refugees. They are persons who lived in Palestine "between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." Especially important is that UNRWA extends the refugee status to "the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948." It even considers the children of just one Palestinian refugee parent to be refugees.
The High Commission's definition causes refugee populations to vanish over time; UNRWA's causes them to expand without limit. Let's apply each definition to the Palestinian refugees of 1948, who by the U.N.'s (inflated) statistics numbered 726,000. (Scholarly estimates of the number range between 420,000 to 539,000.)
The High Commission definition would restrict the refugee status to those of the 726,000 yet alive. According to a demographer, about 200,000 of those 1948 refugees remain living today.
UNRWA includes the refugees' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as Palestinians who left their homes in 1967, all of whom add up to 4.25 million refugees.
The 200,000 refugees by the global definition make up less than 5 percent of the 4.25 million by the UNRWA definition. By international standards, those other 95 percent are not refugees at all. By falsely attaching a refugee status to these Palestinians who never fled anywhere, UNRWA condemns a creative and entrepreneurial people to lives of exclusion, self-pity and nihilism.
The policies of Arab governments then make things worse by keeping Palestinians locked in an amber-like refugee status. In Lebanon, for instance, the 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property or even improve their housing stock.
It's high time to help these generations of non-refugees escape the refugee status so they can become citizens, assume self-responsibility and build for the future. Best for them would be for UNRWA to close its doors and the U.N. High Commission to absorb the dwindling number of true Palestinian refugees."

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/unitednations/

They don't live in refugee camps. They're not refugees according to the common definition of refugee status in the UN. The UN has had to invent another definition of refugee just to fit them.

They live in Palestine. It's just that they can't get their shit together and form an effective government because they're too busy trying to kill Israelis.

edit: somebody ratted me out, because my addition was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict
What do you mean, somebody ratted you out? Many people that saw random, extraneous stuff would have deleted it. And, as you said, anybody can edit Wikipedia, without an account.
It could have been Oceandrive that deleted it, it could have been somebody else on the forum, or it could have been somebody totally not connected to us. That's the way Wikipedia works.

UOTE=Drunk commies deleted]I don't care what distinctions the CIA makes[/QUOTE]

You claimed that there was no difference. They say there is, and are a US government body. The US government is no friend to the Palestinian people. You "don't care" because its a source you are unable to impugn, slander or suggest some reason for bias for. In short, faced with the truth, you've bolted and run.

Arab Palestinians began leaving their towns and villages to escape the fighting. Notably, most of the Arab population of Haifa

The Hagannah had actually been broadcasting from loudspeakers to the Arabs to leave the city, and had launched two attacks directly on the inhabitants. Golda Meir was sent to "ask them to stay" after the city was occupied for political reasons, as outlined in David Ben Gurions autobiography.

"The appeals to the Arabs [of Haifa] to stay, Golda's mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'old man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of [Palestinian] Arabs remain with in the [Jewish] state." (Michael Bar-Zohar)

Palestinians are unlawful squatters and/or terrorists who have refused their Jordanian citizenship. (which is still theirs if the want it- all they have to do is turn up at the border and Jordan will grant them citizenship)

No, they are classed as displaced persons and refugees by the UN, and recognised as such throughout the world.

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source.
I would go ahead and make an article that says that 2+2=3.14, but you know, I don't feel like it. If I was going to waste ten minutes, it would be on something worthwile, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Or you can go here, and see what Wiki has to say about OceanDrive3's opinion on Israel. (hopefully it won't be edited!)

edit: somebody ratted me out, because my addition was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflicttry it again.. only losers give up so ez :D :D :p :D

Unwilling to accept the CIAs view, questions wilkpedia but ever eager to post nonsense from a site that carries the following

UNITED NATIONS - a Tyrants' Club Obsessed With Israel

Next it'll be "Massada 2000".......

Or you can go here, and see what Wiki has to say about OceanDrive3's opinion on Israel. (hopefully it won't be edited!)

edit: somebody ratted me out, because my addition was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflictMust be a conspiracy.. :D :D :rolleyes: :D

UOTE=Drunk commies deleted]I don't care what distinctions the CIA makes

You claimed that there was no difference. They say there is, and are a US government body. The US government is no friend to the Palestinian people. You "don't care" because its a source you are unable to impugn, slander or suggest some reason for bias for. In short, faced with the truth, you've bolted and run.



The Hagannah had actually been broadcasting from loudspeakers to the Arabs to leave the city, and had launched two attacks directly on the inhabitants. Golda Meir was sent to "ask them to stay" after the city was occupied for political reasons, as outlined in David Ben Gurions autobiography.

"The appeals to the Arabs [of Haifa] to stay, Golda's mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'old man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of [Palestinian] Arabs remain with in the [Jewish] state." (Michael Bar-Zohar)



No, they are classed as displaced persons and refugees by the UN, and recognised as such throughout the world.
Since when does the CIA get to define national borders? Oh, since in this instance they agree with you. The map you posted, however, contradicts the CIA and is a map that was drawn by Muslims. Are most Muslims anti Palestinian?

The Palestinians left. They wouldn't help defend their homes and their Jewish neighbors. Fuck 'em. You abandon your home and your neighbors so that your "allies" can slaughter them you don't get to reclaim your home afterward.

Unwilling to accept the CIAs view, questions wilkpedia but ever eager to post nonsense from a site that carries the following

UNITED NATIONS - a Tyrants' Club Obsessed With Israel

Next it'll be "Massada 2000".......
My facts on the 1948 war didn't come from that site.

The quotes that I took from the site you mentioned are factually accurate. Even a biased site can contain truthfull quotes.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]Since when does the CIA get to define national borders?
[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]

You claimed that there was no difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. "Borders" had nothing to do with that claim. Please stop trying to move goalposts.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]My facts on the 1948 war didn't come from that site.[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]

Which is just as well, as they seem to have forgotten to remove the story concerning "Rockets in UN ambulances" or, more properly, placed the subsequent retraction of the statement by the Israeli authorities and the removal of the video from the IDF site. It doesnt seem all they have been a bit "funny" about.

Since when does the CIA get to define national borders?


You claimed that there was no difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. "Borders" had nothing to do with that claim. Please stop trying to move goalposts.

My facts on the 1948 war didn't come from that site.

Which is just as well, as they seem to have forgotten to remove the story concerning "Rockets in UN ambulances" or, more properly, placed the subsequent retraction of the statement by the Israeli authorities and the removal of the video from the IDF site. It doesnt seem all they have been a bit "funny" about.
We were talking about Palestine as a nation, right? I would think that the fact that there never was a nation called Palestine, the fact that Palestinian people are genetically and culturally Arabs, and the fact that maps from before British collonialism and even after British collonialism show Palestine to be just a region in Transjordan would be relevant to the issue. Who's moving any goalposts?

Nodinia, please learn to quote properly. Just click the "reply with quote" button. I'm having to go back and edit all of my posts that contain responses by you to make them look right.

try it again.. only losers give up so ez

Yet again, you ignore the point, that WIKI is NOT a valid source.
Calling me a loser doesn't make your case.

Must be a conspiracy..

Or, maybe you (or anybody else who has a computer) went in and changed it back. Which is the damn point. And you might want to cut down on the smilies, unless you want Jolt to freeze/lag.

We were talking about Palestine as a nation, right? I would think that the fact that there never was a nation called Palestine, the fact that Palestinian people are genetically and culturally Arabs, and the fact that maps from before British collonialism and even after British collonialism show Palestine to be just a region in Transjordan would be relevant to the issue. Who's moving any goalposts?

So now we should merge the Scandanavian nations, because "they're all the same" as well, and the French speaking Belgians with France, the Waloons with Germany....

The Palestinians are a distinct and seperate people to the Jordanians, regardless of the fact both are Arab. Thats why they are distinguishable from each other and distinct in their own right. Thats why they, like the Kurds and other peoples, have a right to a homeland.

I dont feel like reading all 9 pages of this thread so heres my two cents...

The reason that the US can keep other nations from have nuclear weapons is because that the nations that the US is stopping are those that either want to destroy the US or another nation with them.

Yet again, you ignore the point, that WIKI is NOT a valid source.
Calling me a loser doesn't make your case. calling you a loser... would not help my case.. but It would make me smile.

But no... I didnt call you that. :D

Just as an aside...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

While saying that it has its flaws as a source is perfectly true, it would be rather more productive to deconstruct the specific item(s) than bounce yea/nay back and forth. All sources of information can be either false or "off" in some way merely by accident - obviously when certain emotive issues are raised that risk is compounded by the danger of subjective bias (or even the fear of appearing biased).

Whooooaaa boy, the good 'ole middle-east shebang that has been causing problems for the last 50 years.

1. Everyone has a right not to get blown to bits by some bomb/missile/shell ect. (Isreali airstrikes on refugee camps and Palestinean durka durka bombings)

2. Everyone has a right not to be gunned dow in the street. (Palestinean girl who go shot by a soldier, old man in a wheelchair gunned down by a tank, the namless 1000's who have died. The brutal execution of jewish woman and her
children in thier car.)

^Niether group can take the moral high ground with these two simple rights.

3. WMD's should be gotten rid of by everyone. That includes USA, Russia, Isreal, Idia, Pakistan, North Korea, ect. They have no useful purpose and the ability to kill millions at one stroke is a power that no-one should hold.

4. Read "Japan's War: The Pacific Conflict" By Edwin P. Hoyt.

Page 401:
"Even when Dr. Yoshiro Nishina, an atomic expert, flew down to Hiroshima and came back to report that an atomic bomb had caused the damage, the generals said they could live with it. Thier reasoning was really sound: the atomic bomb had not done as much destruction or killed as many people as the great fire raidon march 9 on Toykyo, and all of the cumulative effect of all the B-29 raids was much worse indeed."

"...from the short-term point of view, they were quite willing to live with the atomic bomb. They reasoned that the Americans could not have more than one or two more of them."

The atomic bomb did not break the back of Japan. It was Emporor Hirohito's decision to surrender (Page 404-405) that prevented the ground war on the Japan isles. The military was very much prepared to keep fighting from a psychological point of view.

(And on the topic of the firebombings in Japan. Those bombings were warcrimes, and the gemerals who ordered it should have gone on trial.)

So now we should merge the Scandanavian nations, because "they're all the same" as well, and the French speaking Belgians with France, the Waloons with Germany....

The Palestinians are a distinct and seperate people to the Jordanians, regardless of the fact both are Arab. Thats why they are distinguishable from each other and distinct in their own right. Thats why they, like the Kurds and other peoples, have a right to a homeland.
Please indicate how they are distinct and separate. Everything I have seen indicates that they're not.

1) There was never a historical boundary that separated Palestine from Jordan.

2) They have the same culture as other Arabs.

3) They are genetically no different from Jordanians.

Same culture, no historical border to separate them, same genes. How does that make them distinct from each other?

Please indicate how they are distinct and separate. Everything I have seen indicates that they're not.

1) There was never a historical boundary that separated Palestine from Jordan.

2) They have the same culture as other Arabs.

3) They are genetically no different from Jordanians.

Same culture, no historical border to separate them, same genes. How does that make them distinct from each other?


I've no idea what you've been looking at to convince you that they are one and the same. I would have thought that you'd have got the idea I'm trying to get acrossthrough your skull by now.

I doubt I'm much different gentically from the english, but my lot spent 6-700 years getting rid of them. Same thing with the genetics for Swedes and Switzerland. There are cultural differences between nations. Because you don't like it, doesnt make it any less true. The UN knows it, the Jordanians and Palestinians know it, as does the US government. The only reason this comes up is to imply that Israel has never caused any refugees and undermine the Palestinian claim to nationhood.

The onus, I might add is one you to disprove that they are different, as the (vast) majority view is that they are distinct. You'd actually be able to make a living offof it. My advice is not to quit the day job just yet though.

Because an atomic iran would bring stability to the middle east and act a deterrant to foreign intervention there.

Because an atomic iran would bring stability to the middle east and act a deterrant to foreign intervention there.

Probably not, since the Shiite theocracy might want to unload their weapons on Iraq or one of the other Sunni nations or even worse Israel, since that would bring the US in to the fray.

And if it did bring stability, it wouldn't be the kind we want. It would turn the Middle East in to a fundamentalist and Islamist fortress, and silence any real hope of reform.

Because an atomic iran would bring stability to the middle east and act a deterrant to foreign intervention there.

Even more reason to stop them.

You would want to see Iran gain more power in the middle east to the point that it could act without fear of intervention by the west? There is something very wrong with people when they prefer Iran to the western democracies.

2 things

1) Non-Proliferation Treaty

2)We haven't made it a known goal to erradicate an entire nation, or shout "death to (insert nation here)" as a national policy.

The non-proliferation treaty is at risk. Every year, the plutonium in our current bombs (and everyone else's) degrades a little. There is already concern that our nukes are less than reliable. Also, Bush's requested bunker buster uses nuclear technology and would bust the treaty open if they are discovered in production.

The non-proliferation treaty is at risk. Every year, the plutonium in our current bombs (and everyone else's) degrades a little. There is already concern that our nukes are less than reliable. Also, Bush's requested bunker buster uses nuclear technology and would bust the treaty open if they are discovered in production.

I believe the nuclear bunker busters are effectively dead.

Well one reason we dont want Iran having nuclear anything is because of their insane leader. Hes been preaching that in 2 years, all infidels will be wiped from the earth. With iran starting to gain nuclear power, that doesnt make the government feel to good, doesnt make me feel good either.

I believe the nuclear bunker busters are effectively dead.
Yeah, I believe that project was cancelled late last year.

Why don't we put all the nukes, or at least a bunch of them, under UN controll. They could dole them out to the needy nations who have a need to take down their neighbor. I suppose that might convince the neighbor to be a little more obliging when the needy nation is in need...........Also this might be a quick way to clean up some of the slums of the world.......Could even reduce to hunger problem..........Nothing to eat...no one to eat it..........

Why don't we put all the nukes, or at least a bunch of them, under UN controll. They could dole them out to the needy nations who have a need to take down their neighbor. I suppose that might convince the neighbor to be a little more obliging when the needy nation is in need...........Also this might be a quick way to clean up some of the slums of the world.......Could even reduce the hunger problem..........Nothing to eat...no one to eat it..........

Why don't we put all the nukes, or at least a bunch of them, under UN controll. They could dole them out to the needy nations who have a need to take down their neighbor. I suppose that might convince the neighbor to be a little more obliging when the needy nation is in need...........Also this might be a quick way to clean up some of the slums of the world.......Could even reduce the hunger problem..........Nothing to eat...no one to eat it..........

ARE YOU FRIGGIN SERIOUS?!?!!?

yeah ok and while were at it lets drill down to the core of the earth and blow it up. It would be a faster way of destroying the world than giving a nuke to any nation that wants one.