NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats because the Arab states are, generally speaking, run by a shower of gobshites, then and now. And whatever about now, it wasnt so much about "Jews" then, as a bunch of Europeans arriving in and grabbing a country. Where peoples are very close to an agrarian society, that strikes a very deep chord.

Then you really are ignoring history. Its sad really.

70 million comes from the US, 600 or so from the EU. In other words, if Europe stay in, they can scrape by.

They are already threatening to cut off aide to the Palestinian government if Hamas does not moderate their stance and stop calling for the destruction of Israel.

And where can we find in the middle east pre-1939, anti-semitism to rival that in Europe?

Apparently, you haven't since you do not understand the basics of the case.Oh I understand... I understand... you are trying to dodge the questions..


____________________________________________________
The difficult questions are:
Did Governor Jeb Bush, his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and her Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts, know they had wrongly barred 22,000 black, Democrat voters before the elections? After the elections did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? The Democrats say the answers to both questions are yes.

COMMISSIONER:
In any other country in the world, if this had occurred, there probably would have been riots or military troops throughout the streets.

PARTY CHAIRMAN:
Al Gore won the election. He won the popular vote and he won the vote in Florida. I think that that's pretty clear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

And where can we find in the middle east pre-1939, anti-semitism to rival that in Europe?

I'm more worried about the UN Resolution that would've made Jeruselum into an International City that the Arabs ignored.

The difficult questions are:
Did Governor Jeb Bush, his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and her Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts, know they had wrongly barred 22,000 black, Democrat voters before the elections? After the elections did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? The Democrats say the answers to both questions are yes.

COMMISSIONER:
In any other country in the world, if this had occurred, there probably would have been riots or military troops throughout the streets.

PARTY CHAIRMAN:
Al Gore won the election. He won the popular vote and he won the vote in Florida. I think that that's pretty clear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm


a message board!? (hee hee)

Also from the BBC: (actual news BTW)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1190222.stm

Bush was 'true winner'
George W. Bush
Mr Bush won Florida by 537 votes out of about 6 million cast
George W Bush would probably have won the disputed US presidential election, even if the federal Supreme Court had allowed a recount of votes in the state of Florida, a US newspaper has concluded.


President Bush was lawfully elected on election day. He won after the first statewide machine recount

The Miami Herald, which has carried out its own review of uncounted ballots in Miami Dade county, says Mr Gore would have picked up only 49 extra votes there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1190222.stm

The Miami Herald, which has carried out its own review of uncounted ballots in Miami Dade county, says Mr Gore would have picked up only 49 extra votes there.That is the Miami Herald.. yes it is a News Corp.. but then again so is FOX

That is the Miami Herald.. yes it is a News Corp.. but then again so is FOX

OH!!! TIN HAT CONSPIRACIES!!!! YAY!!!

Howabout these:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Nov11.html


Are they all FOX puppets?

a message board!? (hee hee)

BBCWhat mesage Board.. the BBC is not a Message Board.

Like maybe some news reports:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

or even:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
OH!!! TIN HAT CONSPIRACIES!!!! YAY!!!

Howabout these:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Nov11.html
Why keep posting the same links over and over again?

Or is it all you got? :D

Why keep posting the same links over and over again?

Or is it all you got? :D

Because apparently you keep ignoring them.

There's lots more but since these facts don't coincide w/ yours they're not ligit, right?

Nice twist of the Facts Aeruillin.

2) We do not give aide to terrorist organizations. Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by Israel, The EU, and the USA.
Wrong again Corny. :rolleyes:

There was a sea change in relations between America and Iraq when Ronald Reagan became president. Fearing the rise of Soviet influence in Iran, and fearing an Iranian takeover of the region, the Reagan administration began actively arming and supporting Saddam. By 1982, Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring nations. By 1984, America was actively sharing military intelligence with Saddam's army. This aid included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and tactical planning for battles, assisting with air strikes, and assessing damage after bombing campaigns.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD-114) on November 26, 1983, concerning U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflected the administration's priorities, calling for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld, the head of the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co. at the time, was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein." Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and discussed U.S efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil. Rumsfeld made no reference to Iraq's chemical weapons.

The Reagan administration allowed the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. The shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's security police, helicopters to transport Iraqi officials, television cameras for video surveillance applications, chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. The bacteria cultures were used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.

A US Senate inquiry in 1995 accidentally revealed that during the Iran-Iraq War the United States had sent Iraq samples of all the strains of germs used by Iraq to make biological weapons. The strains were sent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Type Culture Collection to the same sites in Iraq that UN weapons inspectors later determined were part of Iraq's biological weapons program.

The Senate Banking Committee reported in 1994 that the U.S. Commerce Department had traced shipments of biological materials identical to those later found and destroyed by U.N. inspectors. These shipments continued at least until November 1989. Assisted by Pentagon expertise, which secretly seconded its Air Force officers to work with the Iraqis, Iraq began using its air force more aggressively, hitting Iran's economic and infrastructure targets and extending its air strikes to the Iranian oil terminals in the Lower Gulf.

U.S. support for Iraq blossomed further in 1983 when the United States provided economic aid to Iraq in the form of Commodities Credit Corporation guarantees to purchase U.S. agricultural products ($400 million in 1983, $513 million in 1984, and climbing to $652 million in 1987). This allowed Iraq to use money it otherwise would have spent on food to buy weapons and other military supplies. With Iraq off the terrorism list, the U.S. also provided quasi-military aid.

An example of U.S. sales during this time of germ warfare and other weapons to Iraq included "deadly pathogens," with government approval, some from the army's center for germ research in Fort Detrick. The British government also conceded after the Scott Inquiry Report was published that it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export materials to Iraq usable for biological weapons at least until December 1996.

So strong was the hold of pro-Iraq lobby on the Republican administration of President Reagan that it succeeded in getting the White House frustrate the Senate's attempt to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, which it had signed. This led Saddam to believe that Washington was firmly on his side, a conclusion that paved the way for his invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dawoody06082004.html

Looks like Mega Aid to me.

Like maybe some news reports:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
or even:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
your 3 links are full of suppositions...-if- -maybe- -Coulda- -Woulda- -Shoulda-.. etc etc etc

But nothing in your 3 links proves that a recount was not needed.

I say again, this is all moot.

As soon as Iran has a few nuclear warheads on top of their already existing ICBMs and IRBMs, not only will most of the people in Israel cease to exist, the Palestinians, whose territories are intermingled with the Israeli state, will also cease to exist.

Let's just wait a year or two, and there won't be anything to argue over except some highly radioactive craters.
I disagree with you here. I don't see how Iran, a newcomer on the nuclear scene, could possibly have superior weaponry than the Israelis.

I would even go so far as to suggest that your statement is propaganda to build support for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Nothing more, nothing less.

*snip*

Now the link please?

I'm more worried about the UN Resolution that would've made Jeruselum into an International City that the Arabs ignored.

Then why did you bring up Arab anti-semitism?

I disagree with you here. I don't see how Iran, a newcomer on the nuclear scene, could possibly have superior weaponry than the Israelis.
I'm pretty sure when it comes to using nukes it doesn't matter who's got the better one...

People who criticise Israels actions are unlikely to be anti-semitic because (a)Arabs are semites (so why would anti-semite give a crap about them?) (b)many are themselves Jewish and resent the fact that Israel acts in their name. Please do come back with some genuine comments, and spare us the jaded "you just hate jews" nonsense.

"Anti-semitic" refers SPECIFICALLY to bias against Jews. The term has never, at ANY time, had any connection with Arabs. The attempt to conflate bias against Jews with bias against Arabs is unwarranted and intellectually dishonest. Just what you would expect from the left.

As for the "many Jews" who "resent" Israel, they are free to do so. The fact that they feel this way has nothing to do with the FACT that anti-Semitism has become widespread in Europe and ESPECIALLY among the European left.

Perhaps you should come back with some genuine comments as well.

"Anti-semitic" refers SPECIFICALLY to bias against Jews.Anti-Semite refers to bias against Semites.

And where can we find in the middle east pre-1939, anti-semitism to rival that in Europe?

Fact: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler.

Fact: The then-Shah of Persia changed the name of the country to "Iran" to emphasize its "Aryan" roots and its common interests with Nazi Germany against the Jews.

Anti-Semite refers SPECIFICALLY to bias against Semites.

You must be going to grad school to have so little knowledge of the topics you've been ranting about :rolleyes:

You must be going to grad school to have so little knowledge of the topics you've been ranting about :rolleyes:BTW..

I you want an exclusive term for yourselves.. Try something like more accurate like "Anti-Jewish"..

and if you are so worried about exclusive terms.. just trademark it.. :D

What are you talkingabout? Ra'ees Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 for a four-year term. He has three more years tio serve. Clinton didn't resign in 1994 in the wake of the Republican landslide, did he?

I must state you folk are misunderstanding Bush, Abbas is supposed to still be in power, this was not a presidential election. The problem is that Hamas is now the majority in charge of their "congress" (prop title?). Abbas is still the legitimate president, therefore Bush's statement is perfectly reasonable (there was and is question of whether Abbas may resign given these turn of events).

I never thought I would be defending Bush.......I have to go do some soul searching. :headbang:

I must state you folk are misunderstanding Bush, Abbas is supposed to still be in power, this was not a presidential election. The problem is that Hamas is now the majority in charge of their "congress" (prop title?). Abbas is still the legitimate president, therefore Bush's statement is perfectly reasonable (there was and is question of whether Abbas may resign given these turn of events).

I never thought I would be defending Bush.......I have to go do some soul searching. :headbang:

OceanDrive doesn't understand Palestinian politics - that much is certain.

I'm pretty sure when it comes to using nukes it doesn't matter who's got the better one...
I do believe that the numbers of nukes would dictate that the Israelis are better equipped to challenge a nuclear attack. I would also imagine that Israel would have superior defense mechanisms.

The question that begs asking:

Is Iran willing to risk nuclear annilihation of her people on the off chance that they might score a couple of hits in Israel? My guess is NO!!

Then why did you bring up Arab anti-semitism?

I didn't.

I guess no one looks at all the facts. I guess people don't realize that there were many different recounting mechnasizms being employed. I guess no one could understand how to count a punch ballot that wasn't completely punched through. I guess no one understands the fact that counting measures were changed midway through the recount process.

There was more to this then a simple supreme court case. The recounting methods used were so various that the Supreme Court had not choice but to stop it.

Go back and look at all the facts before saying something like this.
You could defend your integrity a little here by posting from those three links i gave you when Verdigroth was bitching about who votes for what .... ;)
*nudge*

You could defend your integrity a little here by posting from those three links i gave you when Verdigroth was bitching about who votes for what .... ;)
*nudge*
Suck it...with utmost respect of course

Suck it...with utmost respect of course
I KNOW you ain't gots the $ to afford respect from me.
;)

EDIT: SPECIFICALLY, the three that i posted as a clarification for the first three. The second run of links are very much in order, IMHO.

Anti-Semite refers to bias against Semites.

Well, I suppose that depends on where you're looking then doesn't it? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antisemitic

"
As for the "many Jews" who "resent" Israel, they are free to do so. The fact that they feel this way has nothing to do with the FACT that anti-Semitism has become widespread in Europe and ESPECIALLY among the European left.

Perhaps you should come back with some genuine comments as well.

This is news to me, as might be imagined. Again - criticism of Israel and anti-semitism are neither two sides of the same coin, or birds of a feather. Where do you get the idea that the "European left" are anti-semitic?

"
Fact: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler.

Fact: The then-Shah of Persia changed the name of the country to "Iran" to emphasize its "Aryan" roots and its common interests with Nazi Germany against the Jews.
.

Its also a fact that before world war II and the preceding upsurge in emigration to then Palestine, there was not the same level, or anything like, the level of sepcificlly anti-jewish feeling in the middle east as there was in Europe.
"
The Arab States didn't want that and prevented it from being implemented. Why? They don't like jews..

Above is where you brought Arab Anti-semitism up. Had zionism been the product of Zen Buddhism, christianity or the scientologists its safe to say they would have received an equally unenthusiastic welcome from the locals, but to say that there was problems for the sole reason that the colonists were Jewish is unsustainable.

"
never thought I would be defending Bush.......I have to go do some soul searching. ..

Try not to scrub too much...it damages the skin.....

Seriously, to be really honest, I don't blame the Palestinians for being pissed. If someone had marched in and taken my house and my land and sent me to live somewhere else, with little compensation, so some people from really far away could have my land, I'd do anything in my power to get rid of them. If my family was killed by a foreign army, I'd go over to their country and blow myself up on a bus. I wouldn't have anything to live for, so why should they? Now this is obviously not the thinking of governments and politicians, but it is the thinking of the people who join these radical organisations.

The problem is that any solution does not take into account the little people. The everyday people who have to live with it. Who shouldn't have had to live with it in the first place. A better solution to the refugee problem at the end of World War Two should have been found. One that didn't involve riding roughshod over the basic human rights of a large group of people in one region of the world.

I didn't dispute that, but I suggest you take alook at the UN Resolution that would've created a two state solution. Guess what? The Arab States didn't want that and prevented it from being implemented. Why? They don't like jews. So yes, they did prevent a two state solution by not adhering to the UN Resolution that would've made Jeruslem an international city and would've created both Israel and Palestine.

And you know what, maybe it wasn't about hating Jews specifically? Maybe it was about, "Hey this is our country and you can't just dump the problems you made through your anti-semitism and bigotry on us."

As for the "many Jews" who "resent" Israel, they are free to do so. The fact that they feel this way has nothing to do with the FACT that anti-Semitism has become widespread in Europe and ESPECIALLY among the European left.

You misspelled "right".

And you know what, maybe it wasn't about hating Jews specifically? Maybe it was about, "Hey this is our country and you can't just dump the problems you made through your anti-semitism and bigotry on us."

That could be one reason!

And you know what, maybe it wasn't about hating Jews specifically? Maybe it was about, "Hey this is our country and you can't just dump the problems you made through your anti-semitism and bigotry on us."

You know, I find it amusing how many people are acting all offended, like the Palestinians had a country and were forced out with the formation of Israel. The Ottoman empire controlled that entire area until after WWI. After the war, the empire was broken down into several parts, one of which was a British mandate over the area displayed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine This establishes British primacy in the region, with which land was promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
Yes, I am aware that there are better sources out there than wikipedia, but it is sufficient to my needs, and sorting through half a million search results is just something I don't have time for.

I do believe that the numbers of nukes would dictate that the Israelis are better equipped to challenge a nuclear attack. I would also imagine that Israel would have superior defense mechanisms.

The question that begs asking:

Is Iran willing to risk nuclear annilihation of her people on the off chance that they might score a couple of hits in Israel? My guess is NO!!
I dunno, they were fond of human wave attacks when they faced off against Iraq.
I wouldn't be so certain about their willingness to "expend" their populace.

Think about it for a minute, would *you* encourage the guy to step down for hamas? (considering hell will freeze over before they propose peace with Izrael) Or would you try and persuade him to stay in power? its not really a hard question :p

You know, I find it amusing how many people are acting all offended, like the Palestinians had a country and were forced out with the formation of Israel. The Ottoman empire controlled that entire area until after WWI. After the war, the empire was broken down into several parts, one of which was a British mandate over the area displayed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine This establishes British primacy in the region, with which land was promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
Yes, I am aware that there are better sources out there than wikipedia, but it is sufficient to my needs, and sorting through half a million search results is just something I don't have time for.

Please bash your head off the edge of your desk really hard three times...or at least try for three...

Please bash your head off the edge of your desk really hard three times...or at least try for three...

Or a :headbang: will be enough....:rolleyes:

You misspelled "right".
Hahaha
*FLORT* :D

Please bash your head off the edge of your desk really hard three times...or at least try for three...
What's wrong with Maegi's post?

What's wrong with Maegi's post?

He implies that just because the Palestinians didn't have sovereignty, that they didn't have homes or a homeland. It's a silly post.

He implies that just because the Palestinians didn't have sovereignty, that they didn't have homes or a homeland. It's a silly post.
I'm not so sure. There are now Arabs living in Israel, who own homes etc.

In 1947-1948 Palestinian Arabs blew their historical chance, deciding not to accept the UN partition plan calling for two-state solution, however flawed it was. The Arab states decided to take all Palestine by force, and it was a mistake of historical proportions.

The guilty and the innocent were punished alike. As usual. :(

Well, I suppose that depends on where you're looking then doesn't it?
It does..

For some the word "Semite" is exclusive for Jews.. But for others like me It is not an exclusive definition.

So unless you show me a Copyright for the Word "Semite" or "Anti-Semite".. I will keep calling you Anti-Semite anytime you show bias against any Semite.

If you dont like it.. Sue me.

You know, I find it amusing how many people are acting all offended, like the Palestinians had a country and were forced out with the formation of Israel. The Ottoman empire controlled that entire area until after WWI. After the war, the empire was broken down into several parts, one of which was a British mandate over the area displayed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine This establishes British primacy in the region, with which land was promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
Yes, I am aware that there are better sources out there than wikipedia, but it is sufficient to my needs, and sorting through half a million search results is just something I don't have time for.

I was trying to be sensitive to the everyday ordinary Palestinian who got screwed over by politics. I don't think they really care whose fault it was politically. Before Israel, they had land. They had homes. After the political bargaining they didn't. Tends to make one a tad pissed off.

It's really great that Israel was happy to recognise the right of the Arab regions to exist. But maybe, before they came up with the bright idea of creating a whole new country, they should have asked the people it was going to affect how they felt. Whether they wanted a whole new country to be dumped in their laps. Because clearly, they didn't. And I didn't bother to read any of your links because they are immaterial to my argument. In fact, political crap like that furthers my point that people overlook the ordinary, everyday people that were materially impacted in this. the people who are now joining and voting in terrorist organisations that promise a return to "how it was". Politicians can sign declarations and make treaties, but in the end, it's the people who have to live with it.

The guilty and the innocent were punished alike. As usual. :(

Indeed they were, therein lying the problem. Certain parties don't seem to grasp the concept though.

Indeed they were, therein lying the problem. Certain parties don't seem to grasp the concept though.

I will agree with you here.

Democracy happend in Palestine, and people wanted Hamas. Now does America have to go a step-further and remove elected leaders in a Country too?

Democracy happend in Palestine, and people wanted Hamas. Now does America have to go a step-further and remove elected leaders in a Country too?

Nope! Just making sure money doesn't go to Hamas.

Democracy happend in Palestine, and people wanted Hamas. Now does America have to go a step-further and remove elected leaders in a Country too?

"in yet another country" might be more appropriate. Its their own mess for telling Barghouti they wouldnt deal with him if he went against Abbas and won in the presdential elections.