NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Not too surprisingly, Israel has been keeping very close watch on Iran, launching a satellite from Russia [ Say what??? ] to monitor Iranian operations to build a nuclear device. Iran is closer than most thought, and Israel will not, indeed cannot, allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Anyone care to guess when the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?


Tehran found even closer to nukes (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060501-121447-6601r.htm)


By Abraham Rabinovich
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 1, 2006

JERUSALEM -- Israel has told the Bush administration that Iran is closer to having a nuclear weapon than was previously thought, but acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he is confident that the West will not allow that to happen.

The head of the Mossad intelligence service, Meir Dagan, traveled to Washington last week to meet with counterparts in the CIA and pass on Israel's latest findings on Iran's nuclear progress.

An Israeli satellite launched last week from a Russian cosmodrome in Siberia began sending high-resolution photographs over the weekend. Israeli specialists termed the results "amazing." [ Anyone else see the irony in an Israeli satellite being launched by Russia? :eek: ]

However, Mr. Dagan's report was based on earlier information that Israeli sources say indicates that Iran is closer to nuclear capability than is generally realized.

Mr. Olmert, in a weekend interview with the German newspaper Bild, denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in some of the strongest language yet heard from an Israeli leader.

"Ahmadinejad talks today like Hitler spoke before seizing power," Mr. Olmert was quoted as saying. "We are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind, with an anti-Semite. God forbid this man from ever getting his hands on nuclear weapons."

Iran, which reiterated yesterday that it would go ahead with plans to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, maintains its program is for peaceful purposes. Most Western countries reject that claim, and Mr. Olmert said he did not think Tehran would be allowed to succeed.

"The West, above all under the leadership of the United States, will ensure that Iran under no circumstances comes to possess unconventional weapons," he said.

Mr. Olmert did not say what Mr. Dagan told his American counterparts last week. But the London Sunday Times quoted an Israeli source yesterday as saying that the Mossad had evidence of hidden uranium enrichment sites in Iran "which can shortcut their timetable in the race for their first bomb."

The source said Mr. Dagan presented American officials with that evidence and told them: "This is what we know and this is what we'll do if you continue to do nothing."

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee, also described his concern about the Israeli intelligence findings. "When I read the recent reports regarding Iran, I saw a monster in the making," said Mr. Steinitz, whose committee oversees the Mossad.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report Friday accusing Tehran of failing to comply with a Security Council deadline to freeze its nuclear fuel enrichment and instead speeding up its nuclear activities.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060501-121447-6601r.htm). ]

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.

They don't have to start hostilitiese. Iran has been quite vocal about how they intend to wipe Israel off the map, and have recently promised that Isreal will be destroyed "soon".

As long as they get a few nukes together (and it seems to be heading that way), and keep that attitude, it won't be long before they do something incredibly stupid and launch missiles at Israel.

Although Israel has a layered ABM defense with Arrow and PAC-3 (the latter of which was proven in combat in the most recent Iraqi war against multiple missile attacks), some will get through.

So, I would expect that several tens of millions of people would be killed in Iran in a subsequent Israeli attack - and I don't believe that most non-Islamic nations would begrudge them that.

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.

What military or financial aid? Financial aid to Israel makes up less than 2% of their GDP. US soldiers have never assisted Israel, and Israel is one of the major arms exporters in the world today. I think people overestimate how much "help" Israel actually gets from the outside world.

Also, I don't know why everyone assumes that a pre emptive attack would start a war. Israel has bombed its nuclear neighbors before and it didn't start a war. History would be against this argument.

As an American citizen I would like to wish the Isrealis luck on their campaign against Tehran.


Also I'd like to say we need to get the hell out of that area as quickly as humanly possible.

What military or financial aid? Financial aid to Israel makes up less than 2% of their GDP. US soldiers have never assisted Israel, and Israel is one of the major arms exporters in the world today. I think people overestimate how much "help" Israel actually gets from the outside world.

Also, I don't know why everyone assumes that a pre emptive attack would start a war. Israel has bombed its nuclear neighbors before and it didn't start a war. History would be against this argument.

The Nazz is thinking about the 1970s and 1980s, when aid to Israel was more massive.

I think it's far, far more likely, given their actions and rhetoric, that Iran will attack Israel as soon as it is practical to do so.

As long as they get a few nukes together (and it seems to be heading that way), and keep that attitude, it won't be long before they do something incredibly stupid and launch missiles at Israel.

You'd think that would have happened in the Cold War... but it didn't... you would have thought that it would have happened between India and Pakistan... but it hasn't... what's to say that it'll happen this time?

Although Israel has a layered ABM defense with Arrow and PAC-3 (the latter of which was proven in combat in the most recent Iraqi war against multiple missile attacks), some will get through.

Urmm... to my recollection, the IAF didn't fire any missiles at Isreal... at all... how could you possibly presume that?

So, I would expect that several tens of millions of people would be killed in Iran in a subsequent Israeli attack - and I don't believe that most non-Islamic nations would begrudge them that.

I would certainly hold it against Isreal, and I'm absolutely sure that many, many others would be extremely pissed off too. You might not hold it against them, but I'm sure that everyone understands that killing millions, whatever their religion or ethnicity, or even which side of the war they're on, is utterly wrong.

The Nazz is thinking about the 1970s and 1980s, when aid to Israel was more massive.

I think it's far, far more likely, given their actions and rhetoric, that Iran will attack Israel as soon as it is practical to do so.
Ahmadinejad may talk like a psycho, but it's the mullahs with the real power, and they like their position. And they know that an nuclear attack on Israel will result in large sections of their own country being turned into glass. The mullahs have been rational actors on the world stage for a couple of decades now--I don't see them lobbing a nuke at Israel, no matter what they say to keep the locals riled up.

As an American citizen I would like to wish the Isrealis luck on their campaign against Tehran.


Also I'd like to say we need to get the hell out of that area as quickly as humanly possible.
Heh... Something mildly amusing about that sentiment.

"Go, go, go!" shouted the general as he fled the battlegrounds; "Fight on that I might survive!"

Heh... Something mildly amusing about that sentiment.

"Go, go, go!" shouted the general as he fled the battlegrounds; "Fight on that I might survive!"


More like a wal-mart customer cheering the police to off a gun weilding nutjob while fleeing the shop. Of course we could just stop shopping there, infact it'd be good for us in the long run, but right now it's just so damned cheap and easy!

An Israeli satellite launched last week from a Russian cosmodrome in Siberia began sending high-resolution photographs over the weekend. Israeli specialists termed the results "amazing." [ Anyone else see the irony in an Israeli satellite being launched by Russia? :eek: ]

What irony? Is Russia an enemy of Israel now ?

IIRC, they are looking for putting up satellites faster due to what they perceive as increasing hostilities and even India is roped in for that purposes.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1544231,0008.htm
ISRO to launch Israel's spy satellite

You'd think that would have happened in the Cold War... but it didn't... you would have thought that it would have happened between India and Pakistan... but it hasn't... what's to say that it'll happen this time?
Because during the Cold War the US and the USSR were led by realists, who also happened to be quite sane, except for Stalin, but he died before he could initiate his great war against the West.

India and Pakistan are also led by sane, realist leaders. They know that the only thing that would result from a nuclear exchange between their two countries is several million dead people. They also both had the US right there telling them to take a seat and figure out their differences.

The problem with Israel-Iran is that Iran is certainly not led by a sane man. Well, at the moment it is, but when Khameini dies, which will be very soon, he's a very sick man (various forms of cancer), Ahmedinejad isn't a realist, and the truth is he wants a regional war so as to fulfill the apocalyptic prophecies in which he believes.

What irony? Is Russia an enemy of Israel now ?

IIRC, they are looking for putting up satellites faster due to what they perceive as increasing hostilities and even India is roped in for that purposes.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1544231,0008.htm
ISRO to launch Israel's spy satellite
Not necessarily, but Russia is one of Tehran's strongest supporters.

Heh... Something mildly amusing about that sentiment.

"Go, go, go!" shouted the general as he fled the battlegrounds; "Fight on that I might survive!"

Reminds me of Blackadder:

Melchett:"Don't worry my boy. If you should falter, remember that Captain Darling and I are behind you."
Blackadder:"About 35 miles behind you."

I'm faily confident that the best solution to the problem is an independent (secular) Palestinian state - one less thing for Ahmadinejad to bellyache about, and not overreacting in the UN and IEA. Like most politicians, he's all talk.

What military or financial aid? Financial aid to Israel makes up less than 2% of their GDP. US soldiers have never assisted Israel, and Israel is one of the major arms exporters in the world today...

That part is erroneous. "I" (as in me, myself, this person typing), am an American who once, while serving in the US Navy, was stationed for 6 months in harms way and actively fighting and destroying Syrian gun positions in the hills east of Beirut in defense of Israeli forces rooting out the PLO in the city. US military forces HAVE assisted Israel.

Because during the Cold War the US and the USSR were led by realists, who also happened to be quite sane, except for Stalin, but he died before he could initiate his great war against the West.

India and Pakistan are also led by sane, realist leaders. They know that the only thing that would result from a nuclear exchange between their two countries is several million dead people. They also both had the US right there telling them to take a seat and figure out their differences.

The problem with Israel-Iran is that Iran is certainly not led by a sane man. Well, at the moment it is, but when Khameini dies, which will be very soon, he's a very sick man (various forms of cancer), Ahmedinejad isn't a realist, and the truth is he wants a regional war so as to fulfill the apocalyptic prophecies in which he believes.

Urmm how could you possible know what Ahmedinejad wants?

I personally think he's being exceptionally shrewd and exploiting the xenophobic, religious groups of the Persians, and winning their votes that way.

I'm completely sure that he knows what he's doing.

Bush isn't a particularly sane chap, and he's surrounded by evil cronies (Rumsfeld etc.), which doesn't fill me with confidence. But he hasn't nuked Iraq/Iran/Palestine yet.

Blair is becoming increasingly unhinged. But I know that he's not going to nuke anywhere any time soon.



And let's face it, if Stalin didn't nuke the USA/South Korea, then I don't think anyone's prepared to use nuclear weapons in this world.

That part is erroneous. "I" (as in me, myself, this person typing), am an American who once, while serving in the US Navy, was stationed for 6 months in harms way and actively fighting and destroying Syrian gun positions in the hills east of Beirut in defense of Israeli forces rooting out the PLO in the city. US military forces HAVE assisted Israel.

You were stationed in Beirut destroying Syrian outposts of the PLO? Sounds like you were assisting the US, doing US missions. When did Israel request assistance? Never.

Claiming you were "assisting" because you were sent on an independent mission to root out mutual enemies is like two kids at a playground, one jumping in on another's project and shouting "I'm helping!"

You were stationed in Beirut destroying Syrian outposts of the PLO? Sounds like you were assisting the US, doing US missions. When did Israel request assistance? Never.

Claiming you were "assisting" because you were sent on an independent mission to root out mutual enemies is like two kids at a playground, one jumping in on another's project and shouting "I'm helping!"

You are wrong. We were in command communications for co-ordination of efforts and objective and we were in radio communications with Israeli forces during execution of those efforts. You Sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

Urmm how could you possible know what Ahmedinejad wants?

I personally think he's being exceptionally shrewd and exploiting the xenophobic, religious groups of the Persians, and winning their votes that way.

I'm completely sure that he knows what he's doing.
I'm not so sure that that's what he's up to. If he were pandering to audiences, then he'd probably be talking to the Iranian middle class (or what's left of it) and trying to get them all hyped up on things that are good for them.

Bush isn't a particularly sane chap, and he's surrounded by evil cronies (Rumsfeld etc.), which doesn't fill me with confidence. But he hasn't nuked Iraq/Iran/Palestine yet.

Blair is becoming increasingly unhinged. But I know that he's not going to nuke anywhere any time soon.
Once again, Bush is surrounded by realists. Rumsfeld and Cheney are classical realists, much in the strain of Henry Kissinger. They are rather interested in survival and maintenance of the status quo. Not nuclear annihilation.



And let's face it, if Stalin didn't nuke the USA/South Korea, then I don't think anyone's prepared to use nuclear weapons in this world.
Stalin wanted to create a veil of legitimacy towards the use of his nuclear arsenal. As such he played a vital role in the development of the "Doctor's Plot" which was basically an attempt on the part of Stalin to kill Jews until the west intervened, and then go ape-shit. Fortunately, Stalin died fairly early in the proceedings of the Doctor's Plot, and it never happened.

The Mullahs know that launching an attack against Israel, specially a nuclear one, would mean the end of their regime. They aren't insane.

In my opinion, they keep Ahmadinejahd for entertainment purposes and as a distraction from who knows what. Pretty much the same as Zaphod Beeblebrox being the president of the Galaxy.

You are wrong. We were in command communications for co-ordination of efforts and objective and we were in radio communications with Israeli forces during execution of those efforts. You Sir, have no idea what you are talking about.
Perhaps because you were in radio contact with the Israeli's because they had superb intel on the area. They knew where everything was and knew what was going on there.

You are wrong. We were in command communications for co-ordination of efforts and objective and we were in radio communications with Israeli forces during execution of those efforts. You Sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

Being in communiation with allied forces does not mean that you assisted them. Unless Israel formally requested the assistance of US troops, then you have no idea what you're talking about. You think because US troops and Israeli troops worked together that the former "assisted" the latter, but this isn't the case.

Actually, the US has a long history of screwing Israeli troops over in Lebanon. Like during 82 and 83, when they were originally assigned to the area to help the PLO safely remove themselves from the area and escape Israeli bombing.

Were you one of the US troops assigned to that area during the 80s? If so, your mission was to assist the PLO, not Israel.

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.


Only problem with that is the fact that the US or the USSR didn't have a practice of screaming God is Great or glorified death for a way into heaven.....

Perhaps because you were in radio contact with the Israeli's because they had superb intel on the area. They knew where everything was and knew what was going on there.

Yes, absolutely. The US still gets most of its Middle Eastern intelligence from Israel. Its funny how a US Navy man would think that they were "assisting" Israeli troops in the Middle East, but not the other way around. :D

...
Actually, the US has a long history of screwing Israeli troops over in Lebanon. Like during 82 and 83, when they were originally assigned to the area to help the PLO safely remove themselves from the area and escape Israeli bombing.


Bullshit, that's when I was there. Don't lie straight to my face.

And let's face it, if Stalin didn't nuke the USA/South Korea, then I don't think anyone's prepared to use nuclear weapons in this world.

You are right. They didn't have plans to crash planes into buildings either.....

Only problem with that is the fact that the US or the USSR didn't have a practice of screaming God is Great or glorified death for a way into heaven.....
True, but then again, the US has started how many wars since the last time Iran started one? If I'm not mistaken, the last time Iran was in a war was with Iraq and I believe Hussein was the aggressor in that one. That's not to say that Iran has been a perfect citizen--their connections to al Qaeda are far stronger than those of most countries--but in terms of national aggression, they've really been quite quiet.

Bullshit, that's when I was there. Don't lie straight to my face.

You sound upset because you were helping the PLO. The reason US troops were brought into Lebanon was on the request of the PLO, and to assist Arab civilians and PLO militants out from under Israeli bombardment.

Then, after the embassy bombing, the US soldiers pulled out. To pull out safely, the US Navy had to bombard militant positions. I'm guessing if you were in the Navy, bombing militant positions, you were most likely doing this in 84 when the US soldiers were running away after helping the terrorists.

In any case, the US soldiers were never sent to assist Israelis, nor did Israel ever request the assistance of US troops. I know you want to think that is what you were doing, and that may even be what your tiny unit told you, but you'll find no real historical support for such a thing.

I'm not so sure that that's what he's up to. If he were pandering to audiences, then he'd probably be talking to the Iranian middle class (or what's left of it) and trying to get them all hyped up on things that are good for them.

Well you've just crippled your own point there. There isn't much of a middle class, and most of the upper class of Iran are too capitalist to spend their time praying, and not really numerous enough to waste your election policy time over.

So he appeals to the working class, as they're in the majority. What do the working class in Iran amuse themselves with? Religion.

So he pushes his views about religion, with a xenophobic element to it, to drag in people with anti-western or anti-Isreali feeling.

That's what happens in a democracy - you utterly pander to whoever the majority is and get their votes, whilst doing whatever the hell you like,

Once again, Bush is surrounded by realists. Rumsfeld and Cheney are classical realists, much in the strain of Henry Kissinger. They are rather interested in survival and maintenance of the status quo. Not nuclear annihilation.

Rumsfeld and Cheney don't want annihilation insofar as it's not in their best interests to die. Judging from Rumsfeld's past, he doesn't seem like the kind of chap who'd have many qualms about blowing people up, as long as he was in no danger at all.

Stalin wanted to create a veil of legitimacy towards the use of his nuclear arsenal. As such he played a vital role in the development of the "Doctor's Plot" which was basically an attempt on the part of Stalin to kill Jews until the west intervened, and then go ape-shit. Fortunately, Stalin died fairly early in the proceedings of the Doctor's Plot, and it never happened.

Right. And are you getting this information from ProtestWarrior or FOX News?

You are right. They didn't have plans to crash planes into buildings either.....
Neither did Iran. And still doesn't.

True, but then again, the US has started how many wars since the last time Iran started one? If I'm not mistaken, the last time Iran was in a war was with Iraq and I believe Hussein was the aggressor in that one. That's not to say that Iran has been a perfect citizen--their connections to al Qaeda are far stronger than those of most countries--but in terms of national aggression, they've really been quite quiet.
How much have US policies benefitted the rest of the world? How much have Iranian policies benefitted the rest of the world? I think you'll find the credit in the accounts is very much in the favor of the US.

Ahmadinejad may talk like a psycho, but it's the mullahs with the real power, and they like their position. And they know that an nuclear attack on Israel will result in large sections of their own country being turned into glass. The mullahs have been rational actors on the world stage for a couple of decades now--I don't see them lobbing a nuke at Israel, no matter what they say to keep the locals riled up.


I think Ahmadinejad talks like a psycho deliberately. I think its part of a cunning plan to get some one else to falter. I think he will posture and talk until someone else makes some mistake-This is a game designed to seperate allies or undermine his adversaries further.
I think we should be prepared for the worst and be able to act immediately and not act based on his words.
these people are very cunning, a little crazed and not stupid.

Only problem with that is the fact that the US or the USSR didn't have a practice of screaming God is Great or glorified death for a way into heaven.....

What about "God Bless America"?

Is that any different, really, than Allah Ahkbar?

What about "God Bless America"?

Is that any different, really, than Allah Ahkbar?

If you can find an instance of it being used in combat or killing a bunch of peole, then you are correct.....

You sound upset because you were helping the PLO. The reason US troops were brought into Lebanon was on the request of the PLO, and to assist Arab civilians and PLO militants out from under Israeli bombardment.

Then, after the embassy bombing, the US soldiers pulled out. To pull out safely, the US Navy had to bombard militant positions. I'm guessing if you were in the Navy, bombing militant positions, you were most likely doing this in 84 when the US soldiers were running away after helping the terrorists.

In any case, the US soldiers were never sent to assist Israelis, nor did Israel ever request the assistance of US troops. I know you want to think that is what you were doing, and that may even be what your tiny unit told you, but you'll find no real historical support for such a thing.


You are entirely mislead or you are a liar. The PLO leadership (Arafat especially) was sneaking off to Libya and the grunts were fighting or hiding with Syria, and we were actively fighting Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at that time as well with their line in the Sea nonsense. I myself was not even SENT to Lebanon until AFTER the barracks bombing, that's WHY I was there.

We directly assisted and aided and defended Israeli flanks and US forces were used to fight Syrian forces specifically because they were trying to avoid direct Israeli and regular Syrian forces contact to reduce the possibility of any excuse for the soviet or Syria to think of expanding the war in Lebanon any further.

As to if it was a tiny unit, or not, it was over a thousand sailors and two thousand marines expeditionary force, not counting the forces that were already there in the bombed out barracks and the air port and embassy. We were there from 83’ and parts of 84’ and I have an armed forces expeditionary service ribbon that says the government does know we were there and that we were fighting. Air cover was provided by the USS Nassau (LHA-4 with attack Cobras and Harriers) and relief ships, which were not used, were stationed of the shore perpetually. Even a US battleship was called in for a couple of months (or so, I don’t recall how long but it was nice to have them there, I remember that) and it’s big guns were utilized to smash the last remnants out of the Syrian howitzer positions and made them decide to give up the idea of reinforcing them any more. Syrian forces returned to the border after that.

You sir, are still wrong. US Forces DID assist and help Israeli forces.

If you can find an instance of it being used in combat or killing a bunch of peole, then you are correct.....

People have killed in the name of Christianity, from the Crusades to witch hunts to burning Catholics/Protestants.

It's just that Christians generally don't do that any more. In any case the phrase 'Allah Ahkbar' is not a phrase 'designed' for use in combat.

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.
They haven't started hostilities. Iran has by openly threatening their very existence. That madman in Iran needs to be overthrown.

What military or financial aid? Financial aid to Israel makes up less than 2% of their GDP. US soldiers have never assisted Israel, and Israel is one of the major arms exporters in the world today. I think people overestimate how much "help" Israel actually gets from the outside world.

Also, I don't know why everyone assumes that a pre emptive attack would start a war. Israel has bombed its nuclear neighbors before and it didn't start a war. History would be against this argument.

I found figures for $700 million of 'surplus' military equipment 'donated' to Israel in 1990, and the figure of $100 billion of total 'financial' aid, of which almost exactly 2/3 is 'military' allocations.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html

Unfortunately, this source doesn't talk about active service, so I have no information on that angle, yet.

COMMENTARY: Not too surprisingly, Israel has been keeping very close watch on Iran, launching a satellite from Russia [ Say what??? ] to monitor Iranian operations to build a nuclear device. Iran is closer than most thought, and Israel will not, indeed cannot, allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Anyone care to guess when the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?


Why can Israel not 'tolerate' Iranian Nuclear weaponry, but you expect Iran to just suck it up that Israel already has that same nuclear technology?

If you can find an instance of it being used in combat or killing a bunch of peole, then you are correct.....

It was used in before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in much the same fashion.

Allah Ahkbar isn't a phrase often-said in a war, it's used like "God bless America" as a kind of message to God (or Allah in this case) that some help would be nice/that the country/group in question should has hopefully pleased God/Allah.

How much have US policies benefitted the rest of the world? How much have Iranian policies benefitted the rest of the world? I think you'll find the credit in the accounts is very much in the favor of the US.
Depends on who you ask. US policies have done a lot of damage to emerging economies in other parts of the world, and the US has a long history of exploitation. That ledger might not be as unbalanced as you think it is. The US does big things, and when they go wrong, they go wrong in a big way. Iran doesn't do such big things, so they have comparatively smaller effects when they go wrong.

You are entirely mislead or you are a liar. The PLO leadership (Arafat especially) was sneaking off to Libya and the grunts were fighting or hiding with Syria, and we were actively fighting Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at that time as well with their line in the Sea nonsense. I myself was not even SENT to Lebanon until AFTER the barracks bombing, that's WHY I was there.

We directly assisted and aided and defended Israeli flanks and US forces were used to fight Syrian forces specifically because they were trying to avoid direct Israeli and regular Syrian forces contact to reduce the possibility of any excuse for the soviet or Syria to think of expanding the war in Lebanon any further.

As to if it was a tiny unit, or not, it was over a thousand sailors and two thousand marines expeditionary force, not counting the forces that were already there in the bombed out barracks and the air port and embassy. We were there from 83’ and parts of 84’ and I have an armed forces expeditionary service ribbon that says the government does know we were there and that we were fighting. Air cover was provided by the USS Nassau (LHA-4 with attack Cobras and Harriers) and relief ships, which were not used, were stationed of the shore perpetually. Even a US battleship was called in for a couple of months (or so, I don’t recall how long but it was nice to have them there, I remember that) and it’s big guns were utilized to smash the last remnants out of the Syrian howitzer positions and made them decide to give up the idea of reinforcing them any more. Syrian forces returned to the border after that.

You sir, are still wrong. US Forces DID assist and help Israeli forces.

Ok so when did Israel request our help during your time there? You are indeed wrong here Dubyagoat. What Tropical Sands and others are reporting to you are indeed the facts of the case.

To Israel taking action against Iran. Have fun.

OHNOES they're ANTI-SEMITES.

Note how the UN is only mentioned as if in afterthought, but the primary quotations are about how Iran is like Nazi Germany and the president like Hitler and how the USA should come running when Israel snaps its fingers.

I'm really starting to think this is about Holocaust Denial, not about Iran's nuclear program.

If you can find an instance of it being used in combat or killing a bunch of peole, then you are correct.....

So "Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out" is an Islamic phrase?

Ok so when did Israel request our help during your time there? You are indeed wrong here Dubyagoat. What Tropical Sands and others are reporting to you are indeed the facts of the case.

To Israel taking action against Iran. Have fun.
Riiiiiight. Because you--who wasn't even born when the aforementioned action took place--knows more about the "facts of the case" than a person who was actually there.

And you wonder why we mock you so mercilessly, Corny.

How much have US policies benefitted the rest of the world? How much have Iranian policies benefitted the rest of the world? I think you'll find the credit in the accounts is very much in the favor of the US.
seeing as US policy has screwed our lumber industry to the tune of 5,3 billions in illegal tariffs that the US still doesn't want to give back in full, and that they increasing security forces us to spend a lot to ship things in the Us and further delays cost us even more money. From a Canadian standpoint, Iran has a positive ledger when viewed against the US.

I think it comes down to one thing: either

a) you believe that nationstates act like nationstates and nationstates do not initiate use of nuclear weapons.

or b) there is something "different" about Iran pretaining to its leader(s) religious fanaticism, world outlook, mission, whatever, that makes it an unprediclable, real threat.

You are entirely mislead or you are a liar. The PLO leadership (Arafat especially) was sneaking off to Libya and the grunts were fighting or hiding with Syria, and we were actively fighting Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at that time as well with their line in the Sea nonsense. I myself was not even SENT to Lebanon until AFTER the barracks bombing, that's WHY I was there.

All US troops sent to Lebanon were a part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon. They were sent on direct request of the PLO to remove Palestinian civilians and PLO members, and consisted of Marines, Navy, and other non-US troops. Wikipedia has a nice little article about them that confirms this:

"Multinational Force in Lebanon (also MNF) was an international peacekeeping force created in 1982 and sent to Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The participants included contingents of United States Marines, French paratroopers, Italian soldiers, and British soldiers."

The reason they were "sneaking off" is because you Navy and Marines assisted them in doing so. So who did you really help, Isrealis or the terrorists? Since the point of US involvement was to assist the PLO, it would seem you assisted the terrorists, not the Israelis.

Now, it was immediately after the barracks bombing in 83 when Reagan decided he was pulling out and the very last of the troops got out in 84. This was after you boys had helped the PLO escape.

The shelling done by Navy ships was to help US soldiers withdraw and in retaliation for the bombing and other attacks against US soldiers. Once again, the same article confirms this as well:

"In August 1983, U.S. Marine forces fought with members of Shiite Muslim and Druze Christian militias. Several Marines were killed and others wounded. In response, the U.S. warships USS Virginia and USS John Rodgers shelled Shiite and Druze positions near Beirut."

We directly assisted and aided and defended Israeli flanks and US forces were used to fight Syrian forces specifically because they were trying to avoid direct Israeli and regular Syrian forces contact to reduce the possibility of any excuse for the soviet or Syria to think of expanding the war in Lebanon any further.

I'm sure that is what you thought was going on. However, that isn't what history tells us. See above. The operation you were involved in was to help the PLO remove itself from Lebanon. You were involved in a specific group created for that task alone. You, frankly, helped the terrorists.

Spurious accounts of working with Israeli troops doesn't change the fact that US troops were not sent there to assist Israelis, but to assist a terrorist group.

As to if it was a tiny unit, or not, it was over a thousand sailors and two thousand marines expeditionary force, not counting the forces that were already there in the bombed out barracks and the air port and embassy. We were there from 83’ and parts of 84’ and I have an armed forces expeditionary service ribbon that says the government does know we were there and that we were fighting. Air cover was provided by the USS Nassau (LHA-4 with attack Cobras and Harriers) and relief ships, which were not used, were stationed of the shore perpetually. Even a US battleship was called in for a couple of months (or so, I don’t recall how long but it was nice to have them there, I remember that) and it’s big guns were utilized to smash the last remnants out of the Syrian howitzer positions and made them decide to give up the idea of reinforcing them any more. Syrian forces returned to the border after that.

Yes, see the wikipedia article above. US battleships were called in due to attacks against Marines. Not to assist Israelis.

You sir, are still wrong. US Forces DID assist and help Israeli forces.

You've failed to support this point. You think because there are spurious accounts of US soldiers working with their allies that it counts as "assiting" and "helping." It doesn't. The mission was to remove the PLO. The US hurt the Israelis in this war far more than they helped them. A few spurious accounts of "oh, we bombed Syrian gunposts" doesnt change the fact that you were there to help terrorists escape.

Riiiiiight. Because you--who wasn't even born when the aforementioned action took place--knows more about the "facts of the case" than a person who was actually there.

And you wonder why we mock you so mercilessly, Corny.

You forgot one minor little thing The Nazz and I'll let you figure it out.

Ok so when did Israel request our help during your time there? You are indeed wrong here Dubyagoat. What Tropical Sands and others are reporting to you are indeed the facts of the case.


What do you want me to tell you, about the firefight in front of the Deli, or the laundry run ambush, emergency back up requests don't care who's wearing which uniform, they care who's closest...

Utter nonsense to pretend I don't know what we were doing for six stinking months.

You forgot one minor little thing The Nazz and I'll let you figure it out.
Lemme guess? Your daddy? Spare me. You still don't know dick about it, which is SOP for you on practically every issue you address around here.

Ahmadinejad may talk like a psycho, but it's the mullahs with the real power, and they like their position. And they know that an nuclear attack on Israel will result in large sections of their own country being turned into glass. The mullahs have been rational actors on the world stage for a couple of decades now--I don't see them lobbing a nuke at Israel, no matter what they say to keep the locals riled up.
The very same mullahs didn't have a problem getting their population riled up enough to invade Iraq back in the good ol' days, and send millions of young men (including children) to their deaths in massive human wave attacks.

Only when the situation became untenable and it looked like all their reserves were gone did they stop.

The mullahs have NO consideration for their own people - that much is clear and proven.

What do you want me to tell you, about the firefight in front of the Deli, or the laundry run ambush, emergency back up requests don't care who's whereing which uniform, they care who's closest...

Utter nonsense to pretned I don't know what we were doing for six stinking months.

Oh brother. Just ignore what Tropical Sands is pointing out to you. Nice to know the level of intelligence in the Naval Branch is so low that you actually believe what you are typing ignoring historical evidence

Lemme guess? Your daddy? Spare me. You still don't know dick about it, which is SOP for you on practically every issue you address around here.

Still like to make character attacks I see. I don't care. The historical evidence debunks what Dubyagoat is saying and I don't even have to post a thing about it.

I found figures for $700 million of 'surplus' military equipment 'donated' to Israel in 1990, and the figure of $100 billion of total 'financial' aid, of which almost exactly 2/3 is 'military' allocations.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html

Unfortunately, this source doesn't talk about active service, so I have no information on that angle, yet.

The number $100 billion here is given in regards to total assistance since '49.

What I did, was went to the CIA world factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

Now, this states that Israel's GDP is $140.1 billion.

And that it receives US aid of $662 million.

Of course, its only recently since Israel has really gotten its economy on its feet, so it is in quite a bit of debt. All I was stating is that Israel isn't supported by foreign aid anymore, and that foreign aid makes up a relatively insignificant portion of its total economy.

And let's face it, if Stalin didn't nuke the USA/South Korea, then I don't think anyone's prepared to use nuclear weapons in this world.

I don't think that's true, Castro was certainly prepared to advise strongly for the use of nuclear weapons if Cuba had been invaded by US forces during the Cuban missile crisis. Nuclear weapons have of course already been used by the United States against Japan, and we are fortunate that they have not been used again. However the danger is still there, human fallibility and nuclear weapons are not a good mix in the long term.

Israel would be unwise currently to take action against Iran alone, however if it feels that too little is being done by the world to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons then it probably will take action. If Israel does take action alone against Iran it would cause a hell of a lot of trouble in middle east though.

What do you want me to tell you, about the firefight in front of the Deli, or the laundry run ambush, emergency back up requests don't care who's whereing which uniform, they care who's closest...

Utter nonsense to pretned I don't know what we were doing for six stinking months.

Even if you worked with Israelis for six months straight, this doesnt change the historical fact that US troops were there to assist the PLO, not Israel.

So as much as you want to pretend like you 'assited' Israeli troops, the directive of your operation and presence was in opposition to Israel's goals. You worked against Israel, and as I stated, spurious accounts of you working with Israeli soldiers doesn't change that fact.

Why can Israel not 'tolerate' Iranian Nuclear weaponry, but you expect Iran to just suck it up that Israel already has that same nuclear technology?
I think it has to do with the stated intentions of Iran to wipe Israel off the map.... that's obvious.

all of you that think Ahamadeneijad is just for entertainment, YOU are in denial.

Still like to make character attacks I see. I don't care. The historical evidence debunks what Dubyagoat is saying and I don't even have to post a thing about it.

Coming from someone who tries to discredit Colin Powell and every other retired military personnel that speaks up against the war in Iraq and Rumsfailed every chance you get, that's a pretty disingenuous comment.

The number $100 billion here is given in regards to total assistance since '49.

What I did, was went to the CIA world factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

Now, this states that Israel's GDP is $140.1 billion.

And that it receives US aid of $662 million.

Of course, its only recently since Israel has really gotten its economy on its feet, so it is in quite a bit of debt. All I was stating is that Israel isn't supported by foreign aid anymore, and that foreign aid makes up a relatively insignificant portion of its total economy.

The CIA Factbook also claimed, not too long ago, that 25% of British people spoke Welsh.

The CIA were also the same group who reckoned Saddam had WMDs.

This is also the same CIA that failed to kill Castro several times, funded Noriega, before George Bush decided that imprisoning him would be a better idea and also gave the Muhaj'adeen vast amounts of money, weapons and training.

They're not particularly reliable.

I think it has to do with the stated intentions of Iran to wipe Israel off the map.... that's obvious.

all of you that think Ahamadeneijad is just for entertainment, YOU are in denial.

I recall him saying he thought Israel SHOULD be wiped off the map, and that it would be coming soon... did he actually say Iran was going to do it?

I recall him saying he thought Israel SHOULD be wiped off the map, and that it would be coming soon... did he actually say Iran was going to do it?
Gee, I guess the full scale nuclear enrichment is just a gag, too, eh?

Gee, I guess the full scale nuclear enrichment is just a gag, too, eh?

And attempts to hide the nuclear program too. Even the IAEA is getting fustrated with Iran.

The CIA Factbook also claimed, not too long ago, that 25% of British people spoke Welsh.

The CIA were also the same group who reckoned Saddam had WMDs.

This is also the same CIA that failed to kill Castro several times, funded Noriega, before George Bush decided that imprisoning him would be a better idea and also gave the Muhaj'adeen vast amounts of money, weapons and training.

They're not particularly reliable.

You've slipped into the fallacy of poisoning the well. A person or group being unreliable in one area does not make them unreliable in all areas, and to use a completely unrelated error of the CIA to argue why something can't be reliable (without any evidence that it isn't reliable) is to commit this fallacy.

If you've got a better source that demonstrates that it is wrong, I'd like to see it. However, tracking the GDP and foreign aid to a country isn't difficult. The website grave posted listed for economic aid $532 million total, so we're not too far off here.

Gee, I guess the full scale nuclear enrichment is just a gag, too, eh?
I have no doubt that the Iranians are working toward getting some nukes. I have little doubt that they'll succeed. I'm just not seeing it as the end of the world.

Gee, I guess the full scale nuclear enrichment is just a gag, too, eh?

Why shouldn't they?

The current government is not talking about proliferating nuclear technology - which is more than can be said for the US at the moment.

Why should Iran NOT be 'allowed' to have nuclear technology?

Gee, I guess the full scale nuclear enrichment is just a gag, too, eh?

Of course you're going on the assumption that Muslims are a hivemind and the leaders of Islamic nations will stand behind Iran if the true leadership were suicidal and reckless enough to launch nukes at Israel. Realpolitik goes they'll step waaaay back and deny any involvement or association whatsoever. Not to mention fallout would show up on many of their doorsteps and that wouldn't sit well with them.

I recall him saying he thought Israel SHOULD be wiped off the map, and that it would be coming soon... did he actually say Iran was going to do it?But you're the one claiming he's a joke in the fist place - so why are you paying attention to his phraseology

The CIA Factbook also claimed, not too long ago, that 25% of British people spoke Welsh.

Lol :D.
Got a link by the way?

They don't have to start hostilitiese. Iran has been quite vocal about how they intend to wipe Israel off the map, and have recently promised that Isreal will be destroyed "soon".

As long as they get a few nukes together (and it seems to be heading that way), and keep that attitude, it won't be long before they do something incredibly stupid and launch missiles at Israel.

Although Israel has a layered ABM defense with Arrow and PAC-3 (the latter of which was proven in combat in the most recent Iraqi war against multiple missile attacks), some will get through.

So, I would expect that several tens of millions of people would be killed in Iran in a subsequent Israeli attack - and I don't believe that most non-Islamic nations would begrudge them that.

I agree with most of what you said besides the fact that Iran can launch more than a couple of nuclear missles.

At this point I believe Iran doesn't have any missles atm, and have only begun enriching uranium and still have to develop the means of delivering the missles to it's enemies when they're completed. Possibly 1-3 years in all to be able to launch ICBM's.

When Iran has the missles/silos completed, I believe intel from the satelittes would warn Israel of a possible preemptive strike and will cause Israel 1st to warn the international community, U.S., then if no help is given, a possible preemptive strike on Israel's part in the form of airstrikes.

COMMENTARY: Not too surprisingly, Israel has been keeping very close watch on Iran, launching a satellite from Russia [ Say what??? ] to monitor Iranian operations to build a nuclear device. Iran is closer than most thought, and Israel will not, indeed cannot, allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Anyone care to guess when the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?


Tehran found even closer to nukes (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060501-121447-6601r.htm)


By Abraham Rabinovich
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 1, 2006

JERUSALEM -- Israel has told the Bush administration that Iran is closer to having a nuclear weapon than was previously thought, but acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he is confident that the West will not allow that to happen.

The head of the Mossad intelligence service, Meir Dagan, traveled to Washington last week to meet with counterparts in the CIA and pass on Israel's latest findings on Iran's nuclear progress.

An Israeli satellite launched last week from a Russian cosmodrome in Siberia began sending high-resolution photographs over the weekend. Israeli specialists termed the results "amazing." [ Anyone else see the irony in an Israeli satellite being launched by Russia? :eek: ]

However, Mr. Dagan's report was based on earlier information that Israeli sources say indicates that Iran is closer to nuclear capability than is generally realized.

Mr. Olmert, in a weekend interview with the German newspaper Bild, denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in some of the strongest language yet heard from an Israeli leader.

"Ahmadinejad talks today like Hitler spoke before seizing power," Mr. Olmert was quoted as saying. "We are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind, with an anti-Semite. God forbid this man from ever getting his hands on nuclear weapons."

Iran, which reiterated yesterday that it would go ahead with plans to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, maintains its program is for peaceful purposes. Most Western countries reject that claim, and Mr. Olmert said he did not think Tehran would be allowed to succeed.

"The West, above all under the leadership of the United States, will ensure that Iran under no circumstances comes to possess unconventional weapons," he said.

Mr. Olmert did not say what Mr. Dagan told his American counterparts last week. But the London Sunday Times quoted an Israeli source yesterday as saying that the Mossad had evidence of hidden uranium enrichment sites in Iran "which can shortcut their timetable in the race for their first bomb."

The source said Mr. Dagan presented American officials with that evidence and told them: "This is what we know and this is what we'll do if you continue to do nothing."

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee, also described his concern about the Israeli intelligence findings. "When I read the recent reports regarding Iran, I saw a monster in the making," said Mr. Steinitz, whose committee oversees the Mossad.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report Friday accusing Tehran of failing to comply with a Security Council deadline to freeze its nuclear fuel enrichment and instead speeding up its nuclear activities.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060501-121447-6601r.htm). ]


If the intel on Iranian nukes is as accurate as the intel on Iraqi nukes, then Iran is no threat whatsoever. It's like this; Iran was probably developing nuclear energy for conventional energy-producing purposes. Now that the U.S. and Israel are threatening to attack it the government is probably going to move toward nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack by the U.S. and/or Israel.

At any rate, do not believe the garbage the Moonie Times publishes. It's worth less than the cheap paper its printed on.

But you're the one claiming he's a joke in the fist place - so why are you paying attention to his phraseology

Are you, perhaps, mis-quoting me?

I don't recall ever saying he was a 'joke'.

But then - if you aren't worried about what he has really said... why should you worry about what I have really said?

Lol :D.
Got a link by the way?

Sadly not, I saw it in an article a long time ago, in a library. I can't even remember which library, more's the pity.

If the intel on Iranian nukes is as accurate as the intel on Iraqi nukes, then Iran is no threat whatsoever.

Israeli intelligence is notoriously good. I would trust it before US intelligence regarding the Middle East.

Are you, perhaps, mis-quoting me?

I don't recall ever saying he was a 'joke'.

But then - if you aren't worried about what he has really said... why should you worry about what I have really said?Ah yes, you're right. You never did say he was a joke. However, that seems to be the explanation many people offer when trying to figure out why oh why A. would he say this stuff if he didn't mean it?

It just seems odd to read into his exact wording, but not take the overriding theme of his rantings seriously. After all, if Israel is to be destroyed "soon" where are the non-iranian minions that will materialize to do the deed?

Ah yes, you're right. You never did say he was a joke. However, that seems to be the explanation many people offer when trying to figure out why oh why A. would he say this stuff if he didn't mean it?

It just seems odd to read into his exact wording, but not take the overriding theme of his rantings seriously. After all, if Israel is to be destroyed "soon" where are the non-iranian minions that will materialize to do the deed?
Pray tell, do you read arabic. Otherwise, I doubt you read his exact wording.

Pray tell, do you read arabic. Otherwise, I doubt you read his exact wording.
err, my point is that reading the exact wording (of an indirect translation) is silly, given that the general content is scoffed at.

They actually speak Persian in Iran, and it's hard to find places that teach that, so yeah. I too would like somebody to translate THE WHOLE of his speech.

*edits*

That comment was not to attack anyone, I would just genuinely like to know what was said in that speech.

I've heard that he was referring to the new geography curriculum, but until I know all of what he said it's a bit tricky to know.

Sadly not, I saw it in an article a long time ago, in a library. I can't even remember which library, more's the pity.

The factbook currently says about that figure for Wales:here (http://http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html)
Languages:
English, Welsh (about 26% of the population of Wales), Scottish form of Gaelic (about 60,000 in Scotland)

So I reckon it was probably a typo rather than bad collection of information.

Ah yes, you're right. You never did say he was a joke. However, that seems to be the explanation many people offer when trying to figure out why oh why A. would he say this stuff if he didn't mean it?

It just seems odd to read into his exact wording, but not take the overriding theme of his rantings seriously. After all, if Israel is to be destroyed "soon" where are the non-iranian minions that will materialize to do the deed?

Don't you live in a largely Christian country? I know I do... even though I'm an Atheist... and here's the curious thing...

Periodically, I go to church. Almost every time (maybe it's just because Georgia creams it's jeans over Revelation) I'm there.... the preacher tells me about how Israel IS going to be torn and riven asunder. Not only that, but the guy will usually get into almost orgasmic paroxysms over the horrible diseases and mutilations that most of the world's population are going to suffer then... and then, you should just see that look of joy as they describe the infinite burning of flesh and crawling of worms...

So - makes me think... what people talk about - what they believe, they MAY believe is going to come to pass, but not necessarily their OWN hands. And - being objective about it... Iran's dislike of Israel pales in comparison to the average Baptist 'Revival'.

Aye, it was probably a typo in one edition of the factbook or another. Ah well.

Even if you worked with Israelis for six months straight, this doesnt change the historical fact that US troops were there to assist the PLO, not Israel.

Bullshit. Our mission statement was: "...to provide a presence in Beirut, that would in turn help establish the stability necessary for the Lebanese government to regain control of their capital."

May 1983 - Israel and Lebanon sign peace agreement under U.S. patronage. Syria opposes it, and it is never ratified. October 1983 American Barracks is destroyed. 6 months later, America quits scene and pulls out entirely at the beginning of March 1984 – By the end of March 1984 Peace agreement with Israel is cancelled and Lebanese president Amin Gemayel broke with Israel under remounted Syrian pressure.

Yup, sure looks like American forces weren’t doing anything but helping the PLO :rolleyes:

The Americans were in Beirut since August of 1982 as part of the multi-national peace keeping effort, backed by France, the United Kingdom and Italy.

They (not me personally this time) were originally sent there to help to separate warring factions of the Lebanese army, the Christians and Muslim factions specifically, the peacekeeping forces from all four of the countries with troops on the ground were targeted BEFORE the barracks attack, and you claim we were there to help the PLO, what utter nonsense. Pure bullshit.

Don't you live in a largely Christian country? I know I do... even though I'm an Atheist... and here's the curious thing...

Periodically, I go to church. Almost every time (maybe it's just because Georgia creams it's jeans over Revelation) I'm there.... the preacher tells me about how Israel IS going to be torn and riven asunder. Not only that, but the guy will usually get into almost orgasmic paroxysms over the horrible diseases and mutilations that most of the world's population are going to suffer then... and then, you should just see that look of joy as they describe the infinite burning of flesh and crawling of worms...

So - makes me think... what people talk about - what they believe, they MAY believe is going to come to pass, but not necessarily their OWN hands. And - being objective about it... Iran's dislike of Israel pales in comparison to the average Baptist 'Revival'.oh, so GOD is going to destroy Israel in lieu of the Iranians. Sorry, but even I don't think Ahamdeneijad is *that* crazy. While spontaneous maiming of people is rather fantastic, the attack and destruction of a nation is well within the realm of possibility.

Just a note, I don't think Canada is a predominantly christian place - most people here probably consider themselves areligious, or of some other religion.

Once again, Bush is surrounded by realists. Rumsfeld and Cheney are classical realists, much in the strain of Henry Kissinger. They are rather interested in survival and maintenance of the status quo. Not nuclear annihilation.The current Bush administration is realist is it? In terms of international relations? Well that news to me. I always thought Realists had this concept of other countries' sovereignty, and that it was general a pretty bad idea to muck about with another countries sovereignty. For instance, toppling a regime and installing a new form of governance - they'd think that was a bad idea. It's kinda the reason why GHW Bush stopped the Gulf War after Kuwait was liberated. And it seems like the realists were right.

The Project for the New American Century is neoconservative. Guess who's a member of the PNAC? Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney. Hell, Rumsfeld and Cheney are the founding members. The Bush Administration is neoconservative, and Neoconservatism is very different from Realism.

[/offtopicnessness]

seeing as US policy has screwed our lumber industry to the tune of 5,3 billions in illegal tariffs that the US still doesn't want to give back in full, and that they increasing security forces us to spend a lot to ship things in the Us and further delays cost us even more money. From a Canadian standpoint, Iran has a positive ledger when viewed against the US.

Here's a different opinion from a different Canuck. Seeing as my province exports something like 40% of it's economic output to the United States and economic prosperity in the US means econoic prosperity in Ontario, from this Canadian's standpoint, the US has a positive ledger when viewed against Iran - which has yet to come up with a better explanation for why Zahra Kazemi died other than "oops, she tripped".

Bullshit. Our mission statement was: "...to provide a presence in Beirut, that would in turn help establish the stability necessary for the Lebanese government to regain control of their capital."

That doesn't sound like you were helping Israel. Isreal doesn't occur anywhere in your mission statement, now does it?

May 1983 - Israel and Lebanon sign peace agreement under U.S. patronage. Syria opposes it, and it is never ratified. October 1983 American Barracks is destroyed. 6 months later, America quits scene and pulls out entirely at the beginning of March 1984 – By the end of March 1984 Peace agreement with Israel is cancelled and Lebanese president Amin Gemayel broke with Israel under remounted Syrian pressure.

Yup, sure looks like American forces weren’t doing anything but helping the PLO :rolleyes:

As I've already stated, US troops were there by request of the PLO only. That much is a historical fact, and I've already proven it as such.

The Americans were in Beirut since August of 1982 as part of the multi-national peace keeping effort, backed by France, the United Kingdom and Italy.

Yes, I've already covered this. You're just repeating what I've stated now. This was called the Multinational Force in Lebanon, and it was sent and formed by request of the PLO. I'm pretty sure I quoted that much to you out of the wikipedia article on it already:

"The Multinational Force in Lebanon (also MNF) was an international peacekeeping force created in 1982 and sent to Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The participants included contingents of United States Marines, French paratroopers, Italian soldiers, and British soldiers."

They (not me personally this time) were originally sent there to help to separate warring factions of the Lebanese army, the Christians and Muslim factions specifically, the peacekeeping forces from all four of the countries with troops on the ground were targeted BEFORE the barracks attack, and you claim we were there to help the PLO, what utter nonsense. Pure bullshit.

No, "I" don't claim it personally. History in general does. I was familiar with it. I pulled it up on wikipedia to confirm what I stated. You're the only one flapping in the breeze, claiming something contrary to what all of the sources out there state. Here are some more:

From globalsecurity.org:

"The agreement also provided for the deployment of a three-nation Multinational Force (MNF) during the period of the evacuation, and by late August 1982, U.S. Marines, as well as French and Italian units, had arrived in Beirut. On 10 August 1982 the alert posture of the Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group was heightened in light of a likely deployment as part of a peacekeeping force to oversee the evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) forces from West Beirut."

"The 32d Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) from Camp Lejeune deployed to Beirut to oversee the safe departure of thousands of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) fighters out of the war-torn city."

From answers.com (same as wikipedia, I think):

"The Multinational Force in Lebanon (also MNF) was an international peacekeeping force created in 1982 and sent to Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestinian Liberation Organization."

At the ADL:

"A multinational peacekeeping force arrived in Lebanon in order to supervise the departure of the PLO. By September 1, 1982, over 14,000 armed PLO forces had left Beirut. PLO headquarters was transferred to Tunis, Tunisia."

At britians-smallwars.com:

"On 6th June, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolution which demanded Israel withdraw from Lebanon and observe the cease-fire on the border. On 4th August, the UN Security Council voted to censure Israel. The PLO and Syrian forces withdrew after a US-brokered agreement, monitored by the UN peacekeeping force.


A multinational force was deployed to oversee the withdrawal composed of 800 U.S., 800 French, and 400 Italian troops. The US Marine Corps went ashore in Beirut on 25th August 1982, four days after the French had arrived. The PLO withdrawal was completed with significant incident, and the marines returned to their ships on 10th September."

I could go on and on. History simply seems to disagree with you. Nowhere will you find support for the claim that US troops were sent to help Israelis; US troops were sent to help PLO terrorists escape. Way to go.

err, my point is that reading the exact wording (of an indirect translation) is silly, given that the general content is scoffed at.
oh... my apologies. I jumped the gun there.

But the general content must be put in context too. Who was he adressing? When was he adressing them? What was the discussion supposed to be about? etc.

Looking at the speech and not to whom it is directed is making the same mistake as looking at the words and not the general content.

Just a note, I don't think Canada is a predominantly christian place - most people here probably consider themselves areligious, or of some other religion.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm

According to the 2001 census:

Seven out of every 10 Canadians identify themselves as either Roman Catholic or Protestant, according to new data from the 2001 Census.

The census showed a continuation of a long-term downward trend in the population who report Protestant denominations. The number of Roman Catholics increased slightly during the 1990s, but their share of the total population fell marginally.

At the same time, the number of Canadians who reported religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism has increased substantially.

In 2001, Roman Catholics were still the largest religious group, drawing the faith of just under 12.8 million people, or 43% of the population, down from 45% in 1991. The proportion of Protestants, the second largest group, declined from 35% of the population to 29%, or about 8.7 million people.

Combined, the two groups represented 72% of the total population in 2001, compared with 80% a decade earlier.

The 2001 Census also recorded an increase in those reporting simply that they were “Christian”, without specifying a Catholic, Protestant or Christian Orthodox faith. This group more than doubled (+121%) during the decade to 780,400, representing 2.6% of the population in 2001. This was one of the largest percentage increases among all major religious groups.

Generally speaking, atheists tend to think that everyone else is one, too.

As an American citizen I would like to wish the Isrealis luck on their campaign against Tehran.


Also I'd like to say we need to get the hell out of that area as quickly as humanly possible.
As an American, I would just like to say I hope Iran is sucessful in pushing Israel into the sea, where it belongs.

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone brought this up yet.

We have people located precisely between Israel and Iran. Even if we don't get involved, some of those missiles they shoot at each could go astray and hit some of our people. I don't think an Iran Israel war is in our interest to allow.
Even if we decide to take no action against Iran, I beleive we have enough force projection in the area to stop these two from going at it. We could deny both nations access to the skies over Iraq. If they can't fly over Iraq how can they fight each other?
If Iran fire missiles at Israel, would not our people in Iraq think those missiles were being fired at them and take defensive and retaliatory measures in accordance? How would we know those missiles are meant for Israel and not us when we detect their launches?

If they can't go through Iraq, they can't fight each really well can they? All we have to do is deny them access.

As an American, I would just like to say I hope Iran is sucessful in pushing Israel into the sea, where it belongs.

I'm really surprised you took this stance. I would have thought you'd hope for the exact opposite.

As an American, I would just like to say I hope Iran is sucessful in pushing Israel into the sea, where it belongs.

What about the way Iran would do it? :eek:

I'm really surprised you took this stance. I would have thought you'd hope for the exact opposite.
Pretty simple actually - UN Ambassadorship is a Jew-hater.

If they can't go through Iraq, they can't fight each really well can they? All we have to do is deny them access.

Genius. Let the Persians have another go at killing off their enemies in Iraq, and have some Westerners as casualties too!

And once they're finished with Iraq, they can then move into Isreal pretty much unhindered, too.

I'm really surprised you took this stance. I would have thought you'd hope for the exact opposite.
Why, The death of Israel is beneifical to US security. It is no longer in our interests to support them, however most people are too blind to see that.

Pretty simple actually - UN Ambassadorship is a Jew-hater.

Bloody hell!

Just because you're against the state of Isreal doesn't make you a Jew-hater. I have Jewish friends, but I for one am against the state of Isreal. And that doesn't make me an anti-semite, or a neonazi, or whatever else Isreal shelters behind when it gets criticised.

P.S. sorry if I'm double posting.

Pretty simple actually - UN Ambassadorship is a Jew-hater.
I have nothing against jews, its Israel I hate

What about the way Iran would do it? :eek:
He envisages Ahmadinejad using all the force of his spirit to that effect, I suppose.

Bloody hell!

Just because you're against the state of Isreal doesn't make you a Jew-hater. I have Jewish friends, but I for one am against the state of Isreal. And that doesn't make me an anti-semite, or a neonazi, or whatever else Isreal shelters behind when it gets criticised.

P.S. sorry if I'm double posting.
Pushing the state of Israel into the Med does certainly entail mass killings of the aforementioned Jews.

Why, The death of Israel is beneifical to US security. It is no longer in our interests to support them, however most people are too blind to see that.

Why is it in US interests to have no way to influence the Middle East?

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
I'm really surprised you took this stance. I would have thought you'd hope for the exact opposite.

Why, The death of Israel is beneifical to US security. It is no longer in our interests to support them, however most people are too blind to see that.

Nah...

I was going to be mean, but on second thought,.. no need for that.

As Joy's mom ("My name is Earl") would say, "Don't you JUDGE me..!!!"


-Clamato, "..what a FREAKY idea..!"

They actually speak Persian in Iran,

Farsi.

That doesn't sound like you were helping Israel. Isreal doesn't occur anywhere in your mission statement, now does it?

...snip...

"The Multinational Force in Lebanon (also MNF) was an international peacekeeping force created in 1982 and sent to Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The participants included contingents of United States Marines, French paratroopers, Italian soldiers, and British soldiers."

...snip...

You are confused. On August 25 1982 Marines were deployed and the illegal PLO camps were evacuated and when that was completed the Marines redeployed to their ships on September 10. End of mission. You have your MNF missions mixed up.

In September, between the 16th and the 18th hundreds of Palestinian civilians were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. And On September 20, President Reagan announced the formation of a new MNF with the mission statement I quoted.

President Reagan said on September 28: "And the Marines are going in there into a situation with a definite understanding as to what we're supposed to do. I believe that we are going to be successful in seeing the other foreign forces leave Lebanon. And then at such time as Lebanon says that they have the situation well in hand, why, we'll depart."

During the autumn of 1982, the presence of the Marines in Beirut began to take on an additional meaning which was never publicly acknowledged. The Marines became a bargaining chip in the complex international maneuvering that the United States was fostering. There were active negotiations among the United States, Israel, and Lebanon over the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the terms of a possible treaty between Lebanon and Israel. The presence of the Marines provided leverage in putting pressure on the Government of Lebanon to accede to Israeli demands. The presence implied some measure of protection for the Lebanese authorities against those Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Arabs who adamantly opposed any normalization between Lebanon and Israel.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html

I don't care what some history revisionist wants to re-write, I know for a fact that we were fighting with and protecting the Israeli flanks and killing Syrian soldiers so the Israelis wouldn't get deeper into the shit.

Why is it in US interests to have no way to influence the Middle East?
Thats not what I said. The US can influence any region it wants on its own. The reason it is not in the US security interest to support Israel is because supporting them puts a bullseye on the US for being a target of terrorist attacks.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html

I don't care what some history revisionist wants to re-write, I know for a fact that we were fighting with and protecting the Israeli flanks and killing Syrian soldiers so the Israelis wouldn't get deeper into the shit.

Well, since you dismiss wikipedia, the ADL, and other groups as "history revisionist", hopefully you accept the website you just posted, since it confirms exactly what I've stated:

"Ambassador Philip Habib had been conducting intensive negotiations with the parties in the Lebanese conflict as Beirut continued under Israeli siege. One of the concepts for a negotiated end to the siege would be the deployment of a multinational force to oversee a cease-fire. On July 6, President Reagan announced that he had "agreed in principle to contribute a small contingent of U.S. personnel subject to certain [unspecified] conditions." Reagan placed that decision in the context of bringing "peace and stability to the Middle East. . . . "[17] Habib continued his negotiations throughout July and into August, as the siege of Beirut intensified. The United States joined with other U.N. Security Council members in demanding a cease-fire, voting to censure Israel on August 4. Finally Habib succeeded in negotiating the departure of Yassar Arafat and his PLO fighters.

An essential part of the deal would be the deployment of a Multinational Force (MNF) to facilitate the process."

And some more:

"The agreement (the language of which had been negotiated by Habib and approved in Washington) defined the mandate of the MNF as "to provide appropriate assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces as they carry out" responsibilities for the safe evacuation of the departing PLO, the safety "of the persons in the area" (generally interpreted to mean the Palestinian non-combatants remaining in Beirut), and to "further the restoration of the sovereignty and authority of the Government of Lebanon over the Beirut area.""

"The motivation was in part guilt that Palestinian non-combatants, whose safety the United States had guaranteed in the Habib plan, had been slaughtered by the hundreds. George Shultz said to a colleague: "The brutal fact is, we are partially responsible."[24] There were voices that argued that had not the MNF withdrawn so hastily following the PLO departure, Sabra and Shatila would not have happened."

Reagan authorized Philip Habib, the US Ambassador to Lebanon, to help PLO fighters escape from Israeli siege. And note, nowhere does this website you posted claim that US troops assited Israeli troops. You wont be able to support that claim with a shred of history. As I've stated, you may have been involved in interactions with Israeli soldiers, but there really is no record of helping Israeli soldiers, nor did the United States state that was their purpose at all. However, resucing the PLO was, as the US Ambassador Habib confirmed.

In fact, as this website also confirms, the United States was involved in opposition AGAINST Israel:

"In March of 1978, Israel launched a major military incursion into South Lebanon. This prompted a formal statement of "United States Concern With the Territorial Integrity of Lebanon,"[2] calling for Israeli withdrawal and discussing a U.N. role in Lebanon."

"As the United States is the primary supplier of arms to Israel, many Lebanese and Palestinians in Lebanon counted the United States as an active player in Lebanon on the side of Israel. Intermittently the U.S. administration reported to the American Congress on "Israel's Possible Violation of the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1952"[6] between the United States and Israel."

"The United States was also widely believed to be supporting the Lebanese Christian militia[7] which received assistance and equipment from Israel. In addition, the United States was known to have a close relationship with the intelligence arm of the Lebanese Armed Forces."

"On June 6, President Reagan, in France to meet with the G-7 Heads of Government at the Versailles Economic Summit, dispatched Habib to Israel to try to restore the cease-fire. That same day the United States joined a unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolution demanding that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and that the border cease-fire be observed by all parties."

Really, I could list more. This article cites, multiple times (as I've listed here) how the United States assited the PLO to escape from Israelis, and how the United States worked directly against Israeli interestes in Lebanon.

Now, do you want to call this article "revisionist" like the other five I listed too?

EDIT: Just more from the article on how US troops didn't help Israelis, but rather hindered them.

"By February of 1983, the Marines were involved in disturbing incidents as they guarded their perimeter around Beirut International Airport. On February 2, a Marine captain drew his sidearm as he blocked three Israeli tanks from penetrating his position."

Thats not what I said. The US can influence any region it wants on its own. The reason it is not in the US security interest to support Israel is because supporting them puts a bullseye on the US for being a target of terrorist attacks.

Ah, but that's by implication what you said, since the argument goes that Israel is a US ally and therefore provides needed support when we want to influence the region. Without them, we'd have only Saudi Arabia, and I have doubts you care much for them either.

I understand the second part of your reasoning. US blind support of Israel is a major factor of why terrorists target US.

...Now, do you want to call this article "revisionist" like the other five I listed too?

Keep reading....

Tropical Sands, Israelis in August 1982 wanted to expel the PLO. The evacuation of the PLO was an Israeli victory. The US oversaw Arafat's departure, that's all. The Israeli government was all for it; IIRC Sharon told to the press later that his snipers had Afafat in their sights, but they were ordered not to shoot.

I really wish Israel bombs enrichment and bomb facilities of Iran, if it comes to that.

If India had done the same to Kahuta, there would have been a lot more peace. In 1984, Israel even offered to bomb Kahuta and asked for only refuelling facilities, but the Indian govt pussied out....and we are paying the price with jihadis running amok...

Pushing the state of Israel into the Med does certainly entail mass killings of the aforementioned Jews.

True, but it doesn't mean that you're destroying the state of Isreal simply because it's jewish.

Oh and Aryavartha - you're basically a fool.

People will fight, and they want a pretext. For some people (like the "Jihadis", which is a phrase that irritates me slightly), religion is the nearest excuse to hand. For others, it's "continued security", or "democracy", or whatever rubbish people need as a way to convince themselves that they're not doing anything wrong.

I might fight in the future, and I wouldn't say "I don't really have any reason to fight other than excess adrenaline, tostesterone and a will to build up my self-confidence", I'd say "I needed to protect myself", or "He looked at me a bit funnily". Excuses.

I really wish Israel bombs enrichment and bomb facilities of Iran, if it comes to that.

If India had done the same to Kahuta, there would have been a lot more peace. In 1984, Israel even offered to bomb Kahuta and asked for only refuelling facilities, but the Indian govt pussied out....and we are paying the price with jihadis running amok...
Hm... but if Israel had bombed Kahuta, the US would have been furious beyond measure -- Pakistan was a close American ally in 1984 owing to the matter of Afghanistan.

True, but it doesn't mean that you're destroying the state of Isreal simply because it's jewish.
...
No matter what the reasons are, in this scenario the Jews inhabiting Israel, including several of my friends, are going to drown in the sea. I do not think they would appreciate the fact that they are drowning in the beautiful Mediterranean not because of their Jewishness, but because of various other factors.

No matter what the reasons are, in this scenario the Jews inhabiting Israel, including several of my friends, are going to drown in the sea. I do not think they would appreciate the fact that they are drowning in the beautiful Mediterranean not because of their Jewishness, but because of various other factors.
Don't worry... they'll let them get out before they bulldoze their houses. :p

Anyone else see the irony in an Israeli satellite being launched by Russia? :eek:
Not really. It will sell a reactor to one country, and a launch vehicle to launch a satellite with which to spy on it to another country. Russia is past caring about politics these days, it is truly global free market capitalist in the sense that it will sell anything to anyone.

Not really. It will sell a reactor to one country, and a launch vehicle to launch a satellite with which to spy on it to another country. Russia is past caring about politics these days, it is truly global free market capitalist in the sense that it will sell anything to anyone.
not only that but the Us has a habit of 'fiddling' with sattelites it sends un in space. Surely the Israelis don't want the Us to see the info before Israel is ready to give it to them.

No matter what the reasons are, in this scenario the Jews inhabiting Israel, including several of my friends, are going to drown in the sea. I do not think they would appreciate the fact that they are drowning in the beautiful Mediterranean not because of their Jewishness, but because of various other factors.

I wouldn't actually want anyone there to die, I'd much prefer that everyone currently there in what was once Palestinian land was relocated to a friendly neighbouring state, and that the land was given to the Palestians again.

not only that but the Us has a habit of 'fiddling' with sattelites it sends un in space. Surely the Israelis don't want the Us to see the info before Israel is ready to give it to them.
These days you can have encryption on your desktop powerful enough to require multiples of the age of the universe for a brute-force attack. I doubt anyone is that stupid when it comes to earth monitoring satellites.

Not really. It will sell a reactor to one country, and a launch vehicle to launch a satellite with which to spy on it to another country. Russia is past caring about politics these days, it is truly global free market capitalist in the sense that it will sell anything to anyone.
Or maybe, Russia is playing smart with their own interests. Give Iran nuclear technology to keep Isreal in check. Give Israel a sat to keep Iran in check. That sort of thing.

Though I do think that Russia is just doing it for the money. In theory, what they seem to be doing is a balancing act by helping both Israel and Iran.

I wouldn't actually want anyone there to die, I'd much prefer that everyone currently there in what was once Palestinian land was relocated to a friendly neighbouring state, and that the land was given to the Palestians again.
are you proposing we try to change history. The majority of the jews there were born there. It is wrong to forcibly remove them from their own land.
As for the Palestinians, the only ones who have a just claim to the land are the older ones who are in their 70's and 80's. The younger ones have no claim to it unless they actually born there.
I say let the older ones back in, but leave the younger ones out.

Pretty simple actually - UN Ambassadorship is a Jew-hater.

Actually he's a Kaufmann-esque attention-baiter.

But to the main point:

The classical "Disagreeing with Israel or Israeli Policies = Antisemitic Jew Hater who would buy front row tickets to the Holocaust and sing 'Deutchland Uber Alles' while waving swasticas" carte blanche dogwagging.

And to believe Joseph McCarthy was censured for pioneering modern debating tactics...

I say let the older ones back in, but leave the younger ones out.

You're right. Actually, the Israeli government intends to do just this as soon as a Palestinian state is formed. The Right of Return was going to be granted to Palestinians when a Palestinian State was formed in 2000, except the terrorist Arafat refused to bargin with the PM of Israel, Clinton, the US dealmakers, and five major Arab leaders who all stated it was a fair deal. Arafat just wanted to continue to lead a terrorist organization. Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership were more reasonable, and not a bunch of terrorist thugs, then the Palestinians could have gone home a long time ago like the Israelis offered.

are you proposing we try to change history. The majority of the jews there were born there. It is wrong to forcibly remove them from their own land.
As for the Palestinians, the only ones who have a just claim to the land are the older ones who are in their 70's and 80's. The younger ones have no claim to it unless they actually born there.
I say let the older ones back in, but leave the younger ones out.

That's like saying "Native Americans have no real right to own their land because we killed most of them off and took it."

That's a ridiculous statement, but not much different to the one you've just made.

Actually he's a Kaufmann-esque attention-baiter.

But to the main point:

The classical "Disagreeing with Israel or Israeli Policies = Antisemitic Jew Hater who would buy front row tickets to the Holocaust and sing 'Deutchland Uber Alles' while waving swasticas" carte blance dogwagging.

And to believe Joseph McCarthy was censured for pioneering modern debating tactics...


No, I'm equating

"Pushing all the Jews in Israel into the sea = Antisemitic Jew Hater who would buy front row tickets to the Holocaust and sing 'Deutchland Uber Alles' while waving swasticas"

Not really. It will sell a reactor to one country, and a launch vehicle to launch a satellite with which to spy on it to another country. Russia is past caring about politics these days, it is truly global free market capitalist in the sense that it will sell anything to anyone.
Exactly.
"Roll on up, for my price is down!
Come on in for the best in town!"

Don't worry... they'll let them get out before they bulldoze their houses. :p
I'm not so sure... :)

Oh and Aryavartha - you're basically a fool.

People will fight, and they want a pretext. For some people (like the "Jihadis", which is a phrase that irritates me slightly), religion is the nearest excuse to hand. For others, it's "continued security", or "democracy", or whatever rubbish people need as a way to convince themselves that they're not doing anything wrong.

I might fight in the future, and I wouldn't say "I don't really have any reason to fight other than excess adrenaline, tostesterone and a will to build up my self-confidence", I'd say "I needed to protect myself", or "He looked at me a bit funnily". Excuses.

Look you idiot.

I am specifically referencing to the jihad on India by Pakistani jihadis who use the Paki nuclear bomb to escape retaliation.

This is what will happen to Israel if Iran gets a bomb, what with Iran's continued support to Hamas and Hezbollocks.

If you don't like me using the word jihad, try telling the fucking jihadis that. When they stop their jihad, I will stop using the word jihad. Understood?


Spew your nonsense to someone else.

Hm... but if Israel had bombed Kahuta, the US would have been furious beyond measure -- Pakistan was a close American ally in 1984 owing to the matter of Afghanistan.

That's why I said, the GoI pussied out. They should have taken the risk.

That's like saying "Native Americans have no real right to own their land because we killed most of them off and took it."

That's a ridiculous statement, but not much different to the one you've just made.

Israelis didn't kill most of the Palestinians off and take their land. The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis is very low, and was not due to imperalism, but due to defense. Israeli didn't start "taking land" until it was attacked by Arab nations first.

The difference here is that the land Israel is made up of was owned by the British, it was the British Mandate of Palestine, and it was legally given to the Jews. It did not legally belong to any group that called themselves "Palestinians."

So while you could argue that Native Americans do have a legal right to their land, Palestinians do not have any legal rights to any land within Israel. It was never "their" land. It was British land, and vast tracts of empty, unowned land that was given to Jews, not to Arabs.

I wouldn't actually want anyone there to die, I'd much prefer that everyone currently there in what was once Palestinian land was relocated to a friendly neighbouring state, and that the land was given to the Palestians again.
The trouble is, most of the Israelis are Palestinians now, being born in the territory that is called Palestine. That land is their land, too. And are there any friendly neighboring states around Israel? Cyprus?

Ok so when did Israel request our help during your time there? You are indeed wrong here Dubyagoat. What Tropical Sands and others are reporting to you are indeed the facts of the case.

To Israel taking action against Iran. Have fun.

Are you actually claiming that the US was at war with the PLO seperate from Israel? Come on.

Assistance was requested of the UN, and it was unsuccessfully provided. As per usual, the US came around and tried to assist with varying levels of success.

Or, of course, one could believe that we just happened to SEPERATELY get into conflict with the PLO right after the attempted assassination of 1982 that escalated the conflict with Israel. This requires an unbelievable faith in coincidence, but hey, sometimes coincidence happens, right?

And, of course, one has to ask if the US was helping the PLO why the bombing of the US barracks and why would we need to fight with the PLO in order to get out as was claimed? Or perhaps we were there to keep the peace, at the behest of Israel, and at some point the PLO didn't like us being on the side of Israel (even if on occasion we protected them from Israeli forces) and got angry with the US.

They said this already. About a hundred times, too.

One wonders what the reaction would be if Ahmadinejad, taking into account all these military threats, "pre-emptively" struck Israeli nuclear sites.

to Tropical Sands and Corneliu:


i think i'm going to believe a person who was actually there over you guys.

also, in regards to wikipedia.... isn't the best source you can reference. In fact, most of the college professors i met up w/ state that they won't accept it as a source due to its unreliability.

True, but then again, the US has started how many wars since the last time Iran started one? If I'm not mistaken, the last time Iran was in a war was with Iraq and I believe Hussein was the aggressor in that one. That's not to say that Iran has been a perfect citizen--their connections to al Qaeda are far stronger than those of most countries--but in terms of national aggression, they've really been quite quiet.
are you sure its al qaeda and not hamas & hezbollah? Last I heard, the Iranians had strong differences with Al Qaeda.

That's like saying "Native Americans have no real right to own their land because we killed most of them off and took it."

That's a ridiculous statement, but not much different to the one you've just made.
well, unlike the Palestinians killing Israelis, we are not going around suicide bombing white civilians.

And if you want to compare: Israel's current policy most closely resembles the policy of the US government when it forced native americans onto reservations.

We don't claim the land cause we don't own it anymore. The only land we claim is the reservations and any peice of property we happen to buy. That is why casinos are supposed to be under tribal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction. Once the land became owned by a native american, it became part of "Indian land"

Also, unlike Palestinians, our people were almost wiped from the face of the earth. We are only now making a comeback.

That's why I said, the GoI pussied out. They should have taken the risk.
I wonder what the Soviet Union would have said... Gromyko would have been torn between gloating over the Pakistani misfortune and condemning evil Zionist aggressors. :rolleyes:

They actually speak Persian in Iran, and it's hard to find places that teach that, so yeah. I too would like somebody to translate THE WHOLE of his speech.

*edits*

That comment was not to attack anyone, I would just genuinely like to know what was said in that speech.

I've heard that he was referring to the new geography curriculum, but until I know all of what he said it's a bit tricky to know.

Its called Farci I believe.

Bullshit. Our mission statement was: "...to provide a presence in Beirut, that would in turn help establish the stability necessary for the Lebanese government to regain control of their capital."

And here is where you lose the arguement. Where in this statement does it say that you were supporting Israel? IT looks just like the opposite to me.

I wonder what the Soviet Union would have said... Gromyko would have been torn between gloating over the Pakistani misfortune and condemning evil Zionist aggressors. :rolleyes:

Now that is definitely worth taking that risk.:D

As an American, I would just like to say I hope Iran is sucessful in pushing Israel into the sea, where it belongs.

As an American, I respect your opinion but I hope Iran comes to their senses and follows the rules.

Its called Farci I believe.

Farsi can also be referred to as Persian. It's the official language of Iran. I can actually speak a few words of it (I dated a Persian girl and I have numerous Persian friends). Mostly I can just make jokes.

are you sure its al qaeda and not hamas & hezbollah? Last I heard, the Iranians had strong differences with Al Qaeda.

To make a finer point, the backers of AQ (Saudi and Paki sunnis) have strong differences with the Shi'ite theology and the Shi'ite theocracy in Iran, but AQ itself has not said so explicitly.

It is the taliban which killed all those Iranian diplomats (in case you were referrinig to that incident).

Why, The death of Israel is beneifical to US security. It is no longer in our interests to support them, however most people are too blind to see that.

TILT TILT TILT

Does not compute.

How?

And here is where you lose the arguement. Where in this statement does it say that you were supporting Israel? IT looks just like the opposite to me.

I agree that it was more of a neutral mission, but Israel was very involved in creating the presense of the US and UN troops. The position of the US is somewhere between what TS and DG are claiming, and I would say it's much closer to DG than TS.

*snip*

T.S. well done. Thank you for the historical evidence to dispute what DubyaGoat was saying.

T.S. well done. Thank you for the historical evidence to dispute what DubyaGoat was saying.

It dispures what he was saying too. He claimed we were their to help the PLO when in fact we were there at the behest of Israel to help maintain peace. The reason the PLO eventually attacked us was because we were so supportive of Israel.

to Tropical Sands and Corneliu:


i think i'm going to believe a person who was actually there over you guys.

also, in regards to wikipedia.... isn't the best source you can reference. In fact, most of the college professors i met up w/ state that they won't accept it as a source due to its unreliability.

I'll take the historical record anyday of the week.

And here is where you lose the arguement. Where in this statement does it say that you were supporting Israel? IT looks just like the opposite to me.

And here is where you once again show that you're so full of yourself you'd dismiss the words of people with more (ie actual) military experience than you, up to and including Colin Powell.

You'd make a great FOX News version of Muhammed Saeed "Baghdad Bob" al-Sahaf.

And here is where you once again show that you're so full of yourself you'd dismiss the words of people with more (ie actual) military experience than you, up to and including Colin Powell.

You'd make a great FOX News version of Muhammed Saeed "Baghdad Bob" al-Sahaf.

Gauthier, put my name in the quote box.

Gauthier, put my name in the quote box.

I just did. :D

The Iranians have never stated their intention to have nuclear weapons.

This all started out, originally with Iran exercising their right as a sovereign nation to have nuclear energy - something ALL nations have a right to.

The meddling Jews in washington began to pull the puppet strings and hey presto! America changes "Nuclear Energy" to "NUCLEAR WEAPONS!".

Irans president has indeed called for Israels destruction, but it is mere rhetoric. Ahmadinejad, like his superiors, want nothing more than power over the Iranian people, and they realise starting a war with anyone, let alone Israel or the US would be their downfall.

The IAEA has stated Iran are years away from a nuclear bomb and whilst they should be more open to ease international suspicions, they are not seeking the destruction of the world despite what the ill-informed beleive.

You want to curb nuclear proliferation? Lets all look at Israel. Everytime their nuclear arsenal is mentioned, America blocks any decision to monitor it.
Why? not because it is unfair on Israel or in Americas interest for Israel to be nuclear armed, but because Jewish influence in the white house is vehemently opposed to any criticism of israel. the holocaust is over people, the jews are no longer the victims so stop buying their bullshit.

I dont criticise all jews here. zionists are to judaism what bin laden is to islam.

America gains nothing from its allegiance to israel, and if it wants a safer future, it should stop Israel from annexing more arab land and control israeli nuclear arms. you want peace in the middle east? how about start by NOT bombing one of the most important countries in the region.

its disgusting how americans are forced to shed their blood for neo cons and zionists.

Nuclear winter will probably start there, not here. And then it'll happen here.

To make a finer point, the backers of AQ (Saudi and Paki sunnis) have strong differences with the Shi'ite theology and the Shi'ite theocracy in Iran, but AQ itself has not said so explicitly.

It is the taliban which killed all those Iranian diplomats (in case you were referrinig to that incident).
which diplomats? I am aware that back a few centuries the persians killed some mongol diplomats that resulted in the mongol invasion of Persia.

What are you referring to?

The Iranians have never stated their intention to have nuclear weapons.

This all started out, originally with Iran exercising their right as a sovereign nation to have nuclear energy - something ALL nations have a right to.

The meddling Jews in washington began to pull the puppet strings and hey presto! America changes "Nuclear Energy" to "NUCLEAR WEAPONS!".

Irans president has indeed called for Israels destruction, but it is mere rhetoric. Ahmadinejad, like his superiors, want nothing more than power over the Iranian people, and they realise starting a war with anyone, let alone Israel or the US would be their downfall.

The IAEA has stated Iran are years away from a nuclear bomb and whilst they should be more open to ease international suspicions, they are not seeking the destruction of the world despite what the ill-informed beleive.

You want to curb nuclear proliferation? Lets all look at Israel. Everytime their nuclear arsenal is mentioned, America blocks any decision to monitor it.
Why? not because it is unfair on Israel or in Americas interest for Israel to be nuclear armed, but because Jewish influence in the white house is vehemently opposed to any criticism of israel. the holocaust is over people, the jews are no longer the victims so stop buying their bullshit.

I dont criticise all jews here. zionists are to judaism what bin laden is to islam.

America gains nothing from its allegiance to israel, and if it wants a safer future, it should stop Israel from annexing more arab land and control israeli nuclear arms. you want peace in the middle east? how about start by NOT bombing one of the most important countries in the region.

its disgusting how americans are forced to shed their blood for neo cons and zionists.
If Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, as they claim, then why did the IAEA find documents in Iran detailing how to form uranium in to the shape of a warhead. Why did they find documents indicating that Iran may have been seeking technical information on the blackmarket to build a nuke?

I just did. :D

Change it Gauthier or be reported.

Change it Gauthier or be reported.

Careful. If he broke the rules, report him. If he didn't, don't. But telling him to do what you say or be reported is, to the best of my knowledge, what the mods as weapons rule is all about.

Careful. If he broke the rules, report him. If he didn't, don't. But telling him to do what you say or be reported is, to the best of my knowledge, what the mods as weapons rule is all about.
hey when did you get a blog?

Careful. If he broke the rules, report him. If he didn't, don't. But telling him to do what you say or be reported is, to the best of my knowledge, what the mods as weapons rule is all about.

Jocabia, I'm giving him the opportunity to change it before I pull out the mod card.

hey when did you get a blog?

Today. I looked at yours and started one from there. I was trying to post a comment on yours and it requires you to sign up.

Today. I looked at yours and started one from there. I was trying to post a comment on yours and it requires you to sign up.
oh. ok. I set the comments to be moderated. But haven't checked to see if there were any.
Your link doesn't work btw.

Change it Gauthier or be reported.

Go ahead and cry to the mods. It means I win. Especially since I've been doing this for a relatively long while and you haven't whined about it until today.

Nuclear winter will probably start there, not here. And then it'll happen here.

Just think of the ski action!

Israelis didn't kill most of the Palestinians off and take their land..

True. They drove them off and took the land with only a few hundred killed.


The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis is very low, ..

Since 1948? Suffice to say that it far exceeds the number killed in America by Osama. Yet as they're not American, I suppose we should divide the number by 10 for divining the amount of sympathy they're due.


and was not due to imperalism, but due to defense. Israeli didn't start "taking land" until it was attacked by Arab nations first...

And the activities of Jordan, Egypt etc are somehow justification for the systematic removal of the local population how, precisely?


The difference here is that the land Israel is made up of was owned by the British, ...

This is complete nonsense as you've been told before. It was owned by the local inhabitants, in the same fashion my home is owned by me. The British did not "own" the territory.

Palestine was considered a "Class A" mandate by the league of nations, and was deemed as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate



So while you could argue that Native Americans do have a legal right to their land, Palestinians do not have any legal rights to any land within Israel. It was never "their" land. It was British land, and vast tracts of empty, unowned land that was given to Jews, not to Arabs.

It was given recognition as a state. This did not justify, or excuse the expulsion of Arabs within the orginal borders, or the green line borders recognised after the conflict with Egypt etc.

which diplomats? I am aware that back a few centuries the persians killed some mongol diplomats that resulted in the mongol invasion of Persia.

What are you referring to?

errr...surprised that you do not know of an important event like this...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D7163AF930A25753C1A96E958260

I just did. :D

Communal Property? I don't get it. :confused:

Jocabia, I'm giving him the opportunity to change it before I pull out the mod card.

I'm just letting you know. You asked him to change it, he didn't. Threatening him is not the best way to handle it.

You're right. Actually, the Israeli government intends to do just this as soon as a Palestinian state is formed. The Right of Return was going to be granted to Palestinians when a Palestinian State was formed in 2000, except the terrorist Arafat refused to bargin with the PM of Israel, Clinton, the US dealmakers, and five major Arab leaders who all stated it was a fair deal. Arafat just wanted to continue to lead a terrorist organization. Perhaps if the Palestinian leadership were more reasonable, and not a bunch of terrorist thugs, then the Palestinians could have gone home a long time ago like the Israelis offered.

I'm sorry but do you mean the right of return to within areas which are now inside Israel proper?

if the Palestinian leadership were more reasonable, and not a bunch of terrorist thugs,.

Unlike those members of the Irgun etc who may have gone on to cabinet careers in Israel. By the way, wasn't Ariel Sharon condemned by an Israeli investigation into the Shabitila camp massacres?

errr...surprised that you do not know of an important event like this...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D7163AF930A25753C1A96E958260
How is this important to someone who doesn't live anywhere near Iran or Israel?

Israelis didn't kill most of the Palestinians off and take their land. The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis is very low, and was not due to imperalism, but due to defense. Israeli didn't start "taking land" until it was attacked by Arab nations first.

The difference here is that the land Israel is made up of was owned by the British, it was the British Mandate of Palestine, and it was legally given to the Jews. It did not legally belong to any group that called themselves "Palestinians."

So while you could argue that Native Americans do have a legal right to their land, Palestinians do not have any legal rights to any land within Israel. It was never "their" land. It was British land, and vast tracts of empty, unowned land that was given to Jews, not to Arabs.

The British 'owned' the Native American land before we declared independence as well. If Native Americans have a legal right to the land, then the Palestinians have the same right. Trying to justify Imperialism by comparing Israel to America was a bad choice consider we also were Imperially controlled by the same country.

How is this important to someone who doesn't live anywhere near Iran or Israel?

I do not recall my post being addressed to you.

errr...surprised that you do not know of an important event like this...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D7163AF930A25753C1A96E958260
Iran should have invaded. The world would have been better off. They could have prevented Bin Laden from doing what he did.

That was the Taliban were making the finishing touches on their conquest of Afghanistan.

Communal Property? I don't get it. :confused:

It's the nickname I gave him because so many different people have owned him on debates over General's history.

How is this important to someone who doesn't live anywhere near Iran or Israel?
Iraq in next to Iran. Between Iran and Israel in fact.

It's the nickname I gave him because so many different people have owned him on debates over General's history.
nonsense. Corneliu is great debater.

Damn Jingoistic Jews.
Ha alliteration.

It's the nickname I gave him because so many different people have owned him on debates over General's history.

So, in other words, you admit that you're baiting him. Do you think that's wise?

Since 1948? Suffice to say that it far exceeds the number killed in America by Osama. Yet as they're not American, I suppose we should divide the number by 10 for divining the amount of sympathy they're due.

The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis since '48 is lower than the number of Iraqis killed since Bush's occupation. Its extremely low, for such a long military conflict.

However, as always, Israel is singled out and looked at more harshly than the rest of the nations of the world. Thus is the new anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism.

And the activities of Jordan, Egypt etc are somehow justification for the systematic removal of the local population how, precisely?

For one, there was no "systematic" removal of the local population. These are the kinds of allegations that the US state dept has already condemned as false, and signs of anti-Semitism. Removing internal military threats is perfectly justified, and that is what Israel did.

This is complete nonsense as you've been told before. It was owned by the local inhabitants, in the same fashion my home is owned by me. The British did not "own" the territory.

Property rights are granted by the government. You only "own" your home because your government allows it. There was no Palestinian government that granted them the legal right to "own" any such thing like that. The entire world has recognized Israel's legal right to that land, and that the Palestinians had no such legal right. There are few, spurious exceptions.

I'm sorry but do you mean the right of return to within areas which are now inside Israel proper?

Yes, that is what the term "right to return" means. And that is exactly what was offered during Olso accords, when Arafat royally screwed the Palestinian people over.

It dispures what he was saying too. He claimed we were their to help the PLO when in fact we were there at the behest of Israel to help maintain peace. The reason the PLO eventually attacked us was because we were so supportive of Israel.

It didn't state that they were there at the behest of Israel. Israel never requested US assistance. It was Reagan's idea, and the only group that asked for assistance and got it en masse was the PLO. And, surprise surprise, this is exactly what that article stated. It claimed that the US was trying to help Israel, and make peace, but it never stated that it did actually help Israel or that Israel requested such a thing. In fact, the conclusion of the article was that the US ultimately failed.

So, in other words, you admit that you're baiting him. Do you think that's wise?

I'm not baiting him at all. I merely stating my opinion of others. And frankly if something so nonvulgar, nonreligious and nonethnic or nonracial offends him to where he has to report it to the mods, then he has a thin skin. People have called me a lot worse on NSG and I've never went crying to the mods. And like I said, I don't know why he didn't bother to bring this up a few months back when I started it. It simply reeks of a mood swing.

I'm not baiting him at all. I merely stating my opinion of others. And frankly if something so nonvulgar, nonreligious and nonethnic or nonracial offends him to where he has to report it to the mods, then he has a thin skin. People have called me a lot worse on NSG and I've never went crying to the mods. And like I said, I don't know why he didn't bother to bring this up a few months back when I started it. It simply reeks of a mood swing.

He already has.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480475

to Tropical Sands and Corneliu:


i think i'm going to believe a person who was actually there over you guys.

also, in regards to wikipedia.... isn't the best source you can reference. In fact, most of the college professors i met up w/ state that they won't accept it as a source due to its unreliability.

Most college professors don't accept any encyclopedia. Because its college. You should be past using an encyclopedia. :D

But seriously, that wasn't the only source. Nor is DG the only one who was "over there." In fact, two of the sources I listed were historical accounts composed by people who were involved. The latter one that was discussed was by someone involved in the "peace process." The fact is, the historical record that even comes from people who were over there contradicts what DG was claiming.

You should also familiarize yourself with emic and edic modes of study. A soldier over there is going to have a narrow, slanted, and biased viewpoint on it. Furthermore, while a soldier may experience it, a soldier is not necessarily as qualified to comment on the general situation as someone educated in the subject.

But if you really want to trust a grunt's 6 month experience over numerous, contradictory professional sources on the subject, thats your call. Personally, the latter seems more reliable to me.

Tropical Sands thank you. Youre one of those people who make me feel really good about myself. No matter how bad my day is, I can go to bed thanking God that I'm more fortunate then those as oblivious to the world as you.

He already has.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480475

That post was dated today. Like I said, I've been using the nickname for a few months and him reporting it now simply is pettiness on his part on top of humiliation on having his self-proclaimed military expertise and authority shot down or discredited by others time and time again.

The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis since '48 is lower than the number of Iraqis killed since Bush's occupation. Its extremely low, for such a long military conflict.

However, as always, Israel is singled out and looked at more harshly than the rest of the nations of the world. Thus is the new anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism..

The old straw man for the hard road.....


For one, there was no "systematic" removal of the local population. These are the kinds of allegations that the US state dept has already condemned as false, and signs of anti-Semitism. Removing internal military threats is perfectly justified, and that is what Israel did..

"military" doesnt cover the civillian population. And would you like me to quote Ben Gurion etc again? "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Ben Gurion 1937)

Before the Arab attack, after the UN partition......"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Ben Gurion, 1947)

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state." (Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, History of the Haggannah)

It was a systematic removal.



Property rights are granted by the government. You only "own" your home because your government allows it. There was no Palestinian government that granted them the legal right to "own" any such thing like that. The entire world has recognized Israel's legal right to that land, and that the Palestinians had no such legal right. There are few, spurious exceptions.

Ahem. The Government would have to seek a court order to have me evicted and/or take poessesion of my home. It could not confiscate the property without due process. Secondly, if you read the description of what a mandate was, you'll see that the British were clearly not the "Government" of the actual territory, but more of a temporary transitional administration. Legal Ownership of private property does not usually undergo mass chaos in the transition between imperial colony to independence, nor would it have in this case.

The British 'owned' the Native American land before we declared independence as well. If Native Americans have a legal right to the land, then the Palestinians have the same right. Trying to justify Imperialism by comparing Israel to America was a bad choice consider we also were Imperially controlled by the same country.

I didn't try to justify imperalism by comparing Israel to America. I actually stated that comparing Israel to America wouldn't work, because the US was an imperalist venture while Israel was not. Israel obtained its land through legal exchange, while the US used imperalistic methods.

The transfer of the area to later be called "Palestine" went from the Ottomans, to the British, to partitioned land for Jews and "Palestinians."

And while Native Americans made up valid nations, there was no such Palestinian nation at any point in history. Thus, Native American groups may have had the rights that soverign nations did, but because the Palestinians were never a nation, they had no such national rights.

I didn't try to justify imperalism by comparing Israel to America. I actually stated that comparing Israel to America wouldn't work, because the US was an imperalist venture while Israel was not. Israel obtained its land through legal exchange, while the US used imperalistic methods.

The transfer of the area to later be called "Palestine" went from the Ottomans, to the British, to partitioned land for Jews and "Palestinians."

And while Native Americans made up valid nations, there was no such Palestinian nation at any point in history. Thus, Native American groups may have had the rights that soverign nations did, but because the Palestinians were never a nation, they had no such national rights.

Sorry, my post was actually very poorly worded. I shouldn't post when in a hurry. The US land was 'owned' by the British in the same way Palestine was. You were given your land and we fought for it. But in both cases the land was not Britian's to give. The Palestinians are completely comparable to the Native Americans. It's bizarre that you would make that comparison while claiming one deserves rights to the land and the other doesn't. Personally, I believe both do.

Native Americans formed 'nations' in response to Imperialism. They generally did not agree with 'owning' land. They were just as disjointed as Palestinians and just as native.

. Israel obtained its land through legal exchange, while the US used imperalistic methods..

Most. Its what happened to the people it removed we're concerned with.

.
The transfer of the area to later be called "Palestine" went from the Ottomans, to the British, to partitioned land for Jews and "Palestinians."..

You confuse political control with land ownership.

. And while Native Americans made up valid nations, there was no such Palestinian nation at any point in history. Thus, Native American groups may have had the rights that soverign nations did, but because the Palestinians were never a nation, they had no such national rights.

Dear o dear. You could also say that about almost all nations if Africa, and not a few in Latin America and the middle East. Yet distinct peoples are acknowledged the right to self governance.

That post was dated today. Like I said, I've been using the nickname for a few months and him reporting it now simply is pettiness on his part on top of humiliation on having his self-proclaimed military expertise and authority shot down or discredited by others time and time again.

However, DubyaGoat gets thoroughly discredited and you do not go after him.

"military" doesnt cover the civillian population. And would you like me to quote Ben Gurion etc again? "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Ben Gurion 1937)

Before the Arab attack, after the UN partition......"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Ben Gurion, 1947)

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state." (Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, History of the Haggannah)

It was a systematic removal.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. Ben-Gurion was never involved in any pre-emptive transfer of Arabs out of Israel. This only occured in defense.

And as I've stated before, he did play with these ideas. He recorded them in his diary, etc. However, he also recorded that those methods were out of the question. Yet, you don't want to quote that, do you?

Its very easy to paint a picture of "systematic removal" by taking snippets out of his diary. I could paint the ADL as a racist, anti-Semitic group by taking snippets off of their website. Perhaps you should provide some context to your snippets.

Ahem. The Government would have to seek a court order to have me evicted and/or take poessesion of my home. It could not confiscate the property without due process. Secondly, if you read the description of what a mandate was, you'll see that the British were clearly not the "Government" of the actual territory, but more of a temporary transitional administration. Legal Ownership of private property does not usually undergo mass chaos in the transition between imperial colony to independence, nor would it have in this case.

The only reason the govt. would have to do that is because it has limited itself to those laws. And that is still specific to your government. However, property ownership is still controlled and regulated by the government. If the government changed, then so would your property rights. They are 100% dependent on your government. There exists no objective "right" in a magical world of forms for you to own property. Your only rights are granted by the government.

However, DubyaGoat gets thoroughly discredited and you do not go after him.

Unlike you, he has actual military duty experience and does not claim to be the end all of military knowledge and history. Whereas you've never been to the Middle East in your whole life and yet insist that your assessment of history is the correct one.

Sorry, that was actually very poorly worded. I shouldn't post when in a hurry. The US land was 'owned' by the British in the same way Palestine was. You were given your land and we fought for it. But in both cases the land was not Britian's to give. The Palestinians are completely comparable to the Native Americans. It's bizarre that you would make that comparison while claiming one deserves rights to the land and the other doesn't. Personally, I believe both do.

Native Americans formed 'nations' in response to Imperialism. They generally did not agree with 'owning' land. They were just as disjointed as Palestinians and just as native.

Native Americans formed political 'states' in response to Imperialism. When I use the term "nation" I'm using it in an anthropological sense. While Native Americans consisted of valid political and national entities, Arab "Palestinians" never did. As thus, the two groups are hardly the same. The former had rights as an autonomous group, while the later was not really a nation at all to have any such rights.

And if we use the reasoning that the ancestors of indiginous groups have legal rights to their ancestors land, as we must do to claim that modern day Palestinians or Native Americans have legal rights to any land (because most of the "natives" have died off, all in the former case), then we must accept that the Jews have full legal rights to that land, as they are the oldest indiginous group that were expelled.

You just can't have it both ways. If ancestry gives you legal rights to the land, as is argued for Native Americans, then Jews have legal rights to that whole area. And if ancestry does not, but the rule of law does, then Israel has legal rights to that land as well.

Unlike you, he has actual military duty experience and does not claim to be the end all of military knowledge and history. Whereas you've never been to the Middle East in your whole life and yet insist that your assessment of history is the correct one.

I never claimed I was the end all of Military knowledge and history. I have studied military history yes and I do have good knowledge of it but I do not claim to be an expert in military history.

Israel? Have fun with Iran. Do what you have to do..

You confuse political control with land ownership.

Political control = land ownership. As I've stated before, property "rights", as with all rights, are granted by the government. No such "rights" exist outside of a political venue.

to Tropical Sands and Corneliu:


i think i'm going to believe a person who was actually there over you guys.

also, in regards to wikipedia.... isn't the best source you can reference. In fact, most of the college professors i met up w/ state that they won't accept it as a source due to its unreliability.

I agree with Mirchaz, the first-hand account vs "historical records" for me 1st hand always wins.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. Ben-Gurion was never involved in any pre-emptive transfer of Arabs out of Israel. This only occured in defense.

And as I've stated before, he did play with these ideas. He recorded them in his diary, etc. However, he also recorded that those methods were out of the question. Yet, you don't want to quote that, do you?.

Yet these ideas were well on the way out by the time of the Peel commission, and by 1947 he had gone to the almost complete opposite of his early Arab-friendly stance.


Its very easy to paint a picture of "systematic removal" by taking snippets out of his diary. I could paint the ADL as a racist, anti-Semitic group by taking snippets off of their website. Perhaps you should provide some context to your snippets.?.

I thought the idea of 700,000 expelled in 1948 was sufficient context.




The only reason the govt. would have to do that is because it has limited itself to those laws. And that is still specific to your government. However, property ownership is still controlled and regulated by the government. If the government changed, then so would your property rights. .?.

Actually no, they usually don't for private property. The british took governance of the area, and land ownership[ continued largely unaffected from the ottoman days

However you do make a good point "The only reason the govt. would have to do that is because it has limited itself to those laws." - this is very true. The fledgling state decided to abandon the law, and help itself. "The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Ben Gurion). Thus it expelled the owners, and took what it would. I find it interesting that you say this, yet have been denying that any land was taken.


They are 100% dependent on your government. There exists no objective "right" in a magical world of forms for you to own property. Your only rights are granted by the government.

The state is bound by law. When the state isnt, we have the likes of Idi Amin or Marcos on the rampage.

I agree with Mirchaz, the first-hand account vs "historical records" for me 1st hand always wins.

Where do you think a large chunk of the historical record comes from?

Not just one spurious first-hand account, but multiple corraborating first-hand accounts.

Native Americans formed political 'states' in response to Imperialism. When I use the term "nation" I'm using it in an anthropological sense. While Native Americans consisted of valid political and national entities, Arab "Palestinians" never did. As thus, the two groups are hardly the same. The former had rights as an autonomous group, while the later was not really a nation at all to have any such rights.

No, they didn't. They were in multiple tribes. Many, many tribes, that often warred and disagreed. There was no unity. They didn't have valid political and national entities that one could claim gave them ownership of the land. What they had was there presense on the land.

And if we use the reasoning that the ancestors of indiginous groups have legal rights to their ancestors land, as we must do to claim that modern day Palestinians or Native Americans have legal rights to any land (because most of the "natives" have died off, all in the former case), then we must accept that the Jews have full legal rights to that land, as they are the oldest indiginous group that were expelled.

And if you can PROVE you are an ancestor of those that were expelled good luck. However, we aren't talking about a group that was expelled millenia ago or centuries ago. We are talking about a group that was expelled within this lifetime. It's quite different. The native Americans don't have a right to own all of the land but they certainly should have a right to full citizenship under the current government of the land if they so desire and should certainly be allowed to freely enjoy the land of their fairly recent ancestors.

You just can't have it both ways. If ancestry gives you legal rights to the land, as is argued for Native Americans, then Jews have legal rights to that whole area. And if ancestry does not, but the rule of law does, then Israel has legal rights to that land as well.
Sure. Just prove you're a descendent of the people who were expelled and I think you have excellent point. I'm not claiming Jews should be expelled. Many of them were born there. I'm claiming they should share the land with others who were born there or would have been had they not be, in many cases, violently expelled.

And I feel the same way about Native Americans and a minute ago so did you. I suspect that at the time you didn't realize you were making an excellent case for the Palestinians.

Yea Isreal!

I thought the idea of 700,000 expelled in 1948 was sufficient context.

No, Palestinian militants expelled during the war in defense is not context for pre-war ideas that flew around in Zionism that Ben-Gurion ultimately rejected. You commit the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

However you do make a good point "The only reason the govt. would have to do that is because it has limited itself to those laws." - this is very true. The fledgling state decided to abandon the law, and help itself. "The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Ben Gurion). Thus it expelled the owners, and took what it would. I find it interesting that you say this, yet have been denying that any land was taken.

Since there were no legal "owners" its absurd to say that the "owners" were expelled. Someone has to first have legal ownership of something to be an owner. No body of persons that called themselves "Palestinians" did.

Keep in mind, no Arabs were displaced at all by Jews before the War of Independence. Not only did the land not have real owners, it didn't even have people who claimed to be its owners. The only real "explusion" conflict arose after violent Arabs began attacking.

Political control = land ownership. As I've stated before, property "rights", as with all rights, are granted by the government. No such "rights" exist outside of a political venue.

What about when no such government exists or your 'government' doesn't agree with owning the land?

No, they didn't. They were in multiple tribes. Many, many tribes, that often warred and disagreed. There was no unity. They didn't have valid political and national entities that one could claim gave them ownership of the land. What they had was there presense on the land.

Perhaps you should go look up the term "nation" as we use it in anthropology. Even the multiple, warring tribes shared enough solidarity to make large bodies of them fit the criteria for being a "nation." However, a group of Arabs that called themselves "Palestinians" didn't until Israel got on track.

And if you can PROVE you are an ancestor of those that were expelled good luck. However, we aren't talking about a group that was expelled millenia ago or centuries ago. We are talking about a group that was expelled within this lifetime. It's quite different. The native Americans don't have a right to own all of the land but they certainly should have a right to full citizenship under the current government of the land if they so desire and should certainly be allowed to freely enjoy the land of their fairly recent ancestors.

Actually many Jews today can demonstrate that. Kohanim use special markers on the Y chromosome, for example. This type of DNA testing is becoming increasingly common in Judaism for religious purposes, and as such we have a vast body of scientific proof that demonstrates we are descendants of ancient Middle Eastern inhabitants.

Of course, the archaeological record confirms it too. I don't know anyone that really disputes it, except for conspiracy theorists.

And, the Israeli government has offered twice to give the Palestinian inhabitants full citizenship and equal rights. Even for the descedants and old Palestinians to return to wherever they used to live. Once in 48, and in 2000. However, the Palestinian leadership flatly refused. Arafat stated that he wanted all of Israel, and returned to a terrorist agenda.

And I feel the same way about Native Americans and a minute ago so did you. I suspect that at the time you didn't realize you were making an excellent case for the Palestinians.

I never stated I felt any such away about Native Americans. You started off confused about what I stated in response to Yootopia. I never said that I believed either group had any such property rights.

What about when no such government exists or your 'government' doesn't agree with owning the land?

I imagine it would have to be evaluated on a case to case basis.

Now, if you're referring to the Native Americans, that is something that has always puzzled me. How can groups of people who admittely never "owned" any land, or claimed that they didn't own land, etc., claim that they should be granted land now?

Perhaps you should go look up the term "nation" as we use it in anthropology. Even the multiple, warring tribes shared enough solidarity to make large bodies of them fit the criteria for being a "nation." However, a group of Arabs that called themselves "Palestinians" didn't until Israel got on track.

There was no group of Native Americans calling themselves Americans or anything else. They were multiple small tribes. Much like the Palestinian people consisted of small groups native to the land but not united by a single large identity.

Actually many Jews today can demonstrate that. Kohanim use special markers on the Y chromosome, for example. This type of DNA testing is becoming increasingly common in Judaism for religious purposes, and as such we have a vast body of scientific proof that demonstrates we are descendants of ancient Middle Eastern inhabitants.

Descended from ancient Middle Easterners doesn't make you descended from the people in Israel. What links it to that specific place at the time when they were forcibly expelled?

Of course, the archaeological record confirms it too. I don't know anyone that really disputes it, except for conspiracy theorists.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. What shows that you are their descendent?

And, the Israeli government has offered twice to give the Palestinian inhabitants full citizenship and equal rights. Even for the descedants and old Palestinians to return to wherever they used to live. Once in 48, and in 2000. However, the Palestinian leadership flatly refused. Arafat stated that he wanted all of Israel, and returned to a terrorist agenda.

Links?

I never stated I felt any such away about Native Americans. You started off confused about what I stated in response to Yootopia. I never said that I believed either group had any such property rights.

You said that Native Americans have a claim to the land that Palestinians don't. The truth is that the situations are very comparable except that Palestinians were forced out much more recently.

I put my money on The Nazz, DubyaGoat, and...Grave_n_idle...yeah..

I imagine it would have to be evaluated on a case to case basis.

Now, if you're referring to the Native Americans, that is something that has always puzzled me. How can groups of people who admittely never "owned" any land, or claimed that they didn't own land, etc., claim that they should be granted land now?

Because they lived off of the land. Ownership is a legal idea they didn't have and didn't agree with. This doesn't change their right to self-determination and their right to survive off of said land.

Sorry, my post was actually very poorly worded. I shouldn't post when in a hurry. The US land was 'owned' by the British in the same way Palestine was. You were given your land and we fought for it. But in both cases the land was not Britian's to give. The Palestinians are completely comparable to the Native Americans. It's bizarre that you would make that comparison while claiming one deserves rights to the land and the other doesn't. Personally, I believe both do.

Native Americans formed 'nations' in response to Imperialism. They generally did not agree with 'owning' land. They were just as disjointed as Palestinians and just as native.
Actually nation in native american terms is different than what is being discussed here. We were nation's who didn't claim land. Landownership was a forign concept.

But the analogy to the Palestinians still applies, cause they are being treated in a manner reminescent of the US/British treatment of native Americans. May I also point to how white South Africans treated the natives of that land? Whereever the Brits went, when that place became independent it seems the locals were forced off their lands and into "reservation lands".

Is that an odd coincidence? First it happened in America, then South Africa, then Israel.

What about Canada? I heard they did the same thing.
Australia?

No, they didn't. They were in multiple tribes. Many, many tribes, that often warred and disagreed. There was no unity. They didn't have valid political and national entities that one could claim gave them ownership of the land. What they had was there presense on the land.



And if you can PROVE you are an ancestor of those that were expelled good luck. However, we aren't talking about a group that was expelled millenia ago or centuries ago. We are talking about a group that was expelled within this lifetime. It's quite different. The native Americans don't have a right to own all of the land but they certainly should have a right to full citizenship under the current government of the land if they so desire and should certainly be allowed to freely enjoy the land of their fairly recent ancestors.


Sure. Just prove you're a descendent of the people who were expelled and I think you have excellent point. I'm not claiming Jews should be expelled. Many of them were born there. I'm claiming they should share the land with others who were born there or would have been had they not be, in many cases, violently expelled.

And I feel the same way about Native Americans and a minute ago so did you. I suspect that at the time you didn't realize you were making an excellent case for the Palestinians.
Something about what you said:

1. We had nations. Each nation was composed of tribes. War was not that often until the europeans came. Our way of life consisted of mostly peaceful relations and exchanges. The political entities were valid. Otherwise why would the whites negotiate to buy our land from us at rediculous prices at the time?

2. The US should keep its treaties with the Native Americans and follow its own constitution which states the feds must treat the tribes as seperate nations that are not under the control of the states. The federal government and the states have continually violated the constitution on this matter and repeatedly broken the treaties it signed with Native Americans.

3. The people who should be allowed in the land are those who were born there, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

4. The Native Americans should not get the land back except by buying it back. But the American people owe us reparations.

Property rights are granted by the government. You only "own" your home because your government allows it. There was no Palestinian government that granted them the legal right to "own" any such thing like that. The entire world has recognized Israel's legal right to that land, and that the Palestinians had no such legal right. There are few, spurious exceptions.

I beg to differ. This kind of thinking is dangerous and needs to be stopped. Where are you getting this incredibly statist interpretation of the concept of private property? You are forgetting that the democratic state is just an abstraction of the wishes of the people, a function of their will, i.e. me and everyone else who "owns a home". I "own" my home because the people of the country I live in have created a government that respects my right to do so, a right that they/me believe to exist independently of any state apparatus. It is ludicrous to suggest that I need some sort of permission from the state to own private property when the state exists based on the foundation of an inalienable right to property.

If the current government all of a sudden decided it wanted to deny this right (on a broad scale, I'm not talking about eminent domain for one highway here or there although this is a completely separate issue), it would be annihiliated and replaced with a different government. At least, I would try to annihiliate it and so would a bunch of my friends and their friends, etc etc. I don't need the government's permission to "own" anything. People (be they Arab or Jewish or both, in the case of the "holy land") should control the government, not the other way around.

oh, so GOD is going to destroy Israel in lieu of the Iranians. Sorry, but even I don't think Ahamdeneijad is *that* crazy. While spontaneous maiming of people is rather fantastic, the attack and destruction of a nation is well within the realm of possibility.

Just a note, I don't think Canada is a predominantly christian place - most people here probably consider themselves areligious, or of some other religion.

You say that the idea that God destroying Israel is crazy... and I agree. However, as I pointed out, you are comparing the words of one man, to thousands of years of doctrinal precedent, claiming the one to be a form of madness, and yet, condemning the other.

Actually many Jews today can demonstrate that. Kohanim use special markers on the Y chromosome, for example. This type of DNA testing is becoming increasingly common in Judaism for religious purposes, and as such we have a vast body of scientific proof that demonstrates we are descendants of ancient Middle Eastern inhabitants.


But - you can't prove you were FIRST, obviously.

So - if you can't claim PRIMARY ownership, you'd have to fall back on 'greatest proportion', perhaps... but then, I'm not sure you can prove that Jews have actually 'owned' the land longer than anyone else, either.

But - you can't prove you were FIRST, obviously.

So - if you can't claim PRIMARY ownership, you'd have to fall back on 'greatest proportion', perhaps... but then, I'm not sure you can prove that Jews have actually 'owned' the land longer than anyone else, either.

Well, we can demonstrate that the Jews owned it before any sort of "Palestinian" ethnicity, since there was no actual Palestinian ethnicity until it formed as a culture in opposition to Zionism. For those who are confused reading this, see ethnicity vs "race."

However, I'm not one to make the argument that Jews deserve it because it is their ancient homeland. That is the argument made by those who believe that Palestinians should have it though. Essentially the "they were first" or "they are natives" type of argument. In light of history, archaeology, and anthropology, Jews came before any ethnic group that identified as "Palestinian."

Personally I recognize that the land belongs to Jews because of the rule of law.

Something about what you said:

1. We had nations. Each nation was composed of tribes. War was not that often until the europeans came. Our way of life consisted of mostly peaceful relations and exchanges. The political entities were valid. Otherwise why would the whites negotiate to buy our land from us at rediculous prices at the time?

The point is they were no more a single group than the natives of Palestine, but they are and should be respected as being the inhabitants of the land before they were expelled by Imperialists. In BOTH cases.

2. The US should keep its treaties with the Native Americans and follow its own constitution which states the feds must treat the tribes as seperate nations that are not under the control of the states. The federal government and the states have continually violated the constitution on this matter and repeatedly broken the treaties it signed with Native Americans.

Agreed.

3. The people who should be allowed in the land are those who were born there, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

Agreed. Though people whose parents were forced off and then killed certainly should not remain displaced simply because the Israelis held out long enough. It's been a short time. Certainly we should be able to trace where these people were from and allow them back.

4. The Native Americans should not get the land back except by buying it back. But the American people owe us reparations.
I'm not suggesting that the people who live there now be expelled, as I've said. But they people who were there first should not have lesser rights and should be compensated for their treatment by the US/Canada/Israel, etc.

Well, we can demonstrate that the Jews owned it before any sort of "Palestinian" ethnicity, since there was no actual Palestinian ethnicity until it formed as a culture in opposition to Zionism. For those who are confused reading this, see ethnicity vs "race."

However, I'm not one to make the argument that Jews deserve it because it is their ancient homeland. That is the argument made by those who believe that Palestinians should have it though. Essentially the "they were first" or "they are natives" type of argument. In light of history, archaeology, and anthropology, Jews came before any ethnic group that identified as "Palestinian."

Personally I recognize that the land belongs to Jews because of the rule of law.

You brought up the Native Americans and argued that they deserve the land. Given that, the Palestinians deserve the land for the same reason. And the difference being that they were driven off the land by Jews. While you may or may not have descended from the people who used to live there, they are descended from people who used to live there a few decades ago. Your argument is that you stole the land fair and square, or sorry, talked the people who stole it into giving it to you.

One wonders what the reaction would be if Ahmadinejad, taking into account all these military threats, "pre-emptively" struck Israeli nuclear sites.

Assuming the Iranians got past US air defenses in Iraq, Israel would thank Iran for the chance to practice defending against an airstrike.

Well, we can demonstrate that the Jews owned it before any sort of "Palestinian" ethnicity, since there was no actual Palestinian ethnicity until it formed as a culture in opposition to Zionism. For those who are confused reading this, see ethnicity vs "race."

However, I'm not one to make the argument that Jews deserve it because it is their ancient homeland. That is the argument made by those who believe that Palestinians should have it though. Essentially the "they were first" or "they are natives" type of argument. In light of history, archaeology, and anthropology, Jews came before any ethnic group that identified as "Palestinian."

Personally I recognize that the land belongs to Jews because of the rule of law.

And - 'rule of law' means... what? "We deserve it, because we are here NOW"?

I'd be interested to see your arguments against a 'Palestinian Ethnicity', despite the fact that I think it's a (Very large) red herring.

Can you conclusively prove, I wonder, that the persons residing in the area JUST BEFORE the enforced relocation and settlement by the new 'state of Israel', are NOT the natural descendents of people that lived there before the Exodite invasion? I mean - obviously, if some of those people relocated MIGHT have been descended from the 'original' Caananites, they'd have a MUCH more legitimate claim, wouldn't they?

Or - does Israel's pursuit of heritage only apply when it favours Israel?


As to - why it is a red herring... because it is totally irrelevent. It's like walking into a room full of people, asking if they are all 'together', and when they turn out to be indiviuals who just HAPPEN to share a space, you wedge them out the door.

Since neither side can ACTUALLY prove they were the 'first' inhabitants of the land... and since, let's face it - that makes no difference... surely, the fact that the 'Palestinians' where THERE until an enforced relocation, gives them some kind of preference?

The point is they were no more a single group than the natives of Palestine, but they are and should be respected as being the inhabitants of the land before they were expelled by Imperialists. In BOTH cases.



Agreed.



Agreed. Though people whose parents were forced off and then killed certainly should not remain displaced simply because the Israelis held out long enough. It's been a short time. Certainly we should be able to trace where these people were from and allow them back.


I'm not suggesting that the people who live there now be expelled, as I've said. But they people who were there first should not have lesser rights and should be compensated for their treatment by the US/Canada/Israel, etc.
I would agree on counts.
As for the Palestinians who weren't born there but whose parents were, I would pay them compensation, instead of kicking out the current occupants (if there are current occupants). If there are no current occupants, I would allow them back in provided they swear loyalty to the government and denounce terrorism.

Israel needs to know that the second they start hostilities, they're on their own--no more military or financial aid from the US. If they attack Iran, then you're looking at a regional war, and that's something that no one can handle. The US lived with MAD for decades--still does, to a smaller extent. Israel can handle it too.

There is a significent differnce. Iran is far more psycopathic than the USSR ever was. They see it as their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map. The USSR never thought anything like that about the USA. (I'm not saying all Muslims do that but many of the high powered ones in the Iranian government do)

I would agree on counts.
As for the Palestinians who weren't born there but whose parents were, I would pay them compensation, instead of kicking out the current occupants (if there are current occupants). If there are no current occupants, I would allow them back in provided they swear loyalty to the government and denounce terrorism.

I would say if that is required of them it should be required of all. I suspect the people in the greatest danger if they are let back in will not likely be the Palestinians given the general propensity of members of the majority generally feeling quite justified in oppressing or molesting the minority because at one point or another they were at odds with your nation.

There is a significent differnce. Iran is far more psycopathic than the USSR ever was. They see it as their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map. The USSR never thought anything like that about the USA. (I'm not saying all Muslims do that but many of the high powered ones in the Iranian government do)

No, but the USA thought that about the USSR. That's why we suddenly put God in the pledge, to show those nasty Atheists that God was on our side.

There is a significent differnce. Iran is far more psycopathic than the USSR ever was. They see it as their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map. The USSR never thought anything like that about the USA. (I'm not saying all Muslims do that but many of the high powered ones in the Iranian government do)
Of course the USSR never considered it they holy duty to wipe the US. After all, they were godless commie bastards. :D

Of course the USSR never considered it they holy duty to wipe the US. After all, they were godless commie bastards. :D

Ha, beat you to it.

Interesting letter to the editor of the LA Times:
Re "War clouds," Opinion, April 28

How does Rosa Brooks believe that Israel and Iran would fight each other? It's not as if they are neighbors. Tel Aviv is almost 1,000 miles from Tehran almost twice as far as Baghdad, which was barely in range for the Israeli fighter jets that carried out the attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor. Israel has the same aircraft today, with the same range and no real aerial tanker capacity. If Israeli planes can't get to Iran, what difference does Iran's air defense make? Their armies are hundreds of miles apart, and each would have to go through American forces in Iraq. Neither country has a navy capable of supporting a seaborne invasion or even mounting much of an attack on the other.

True, there is the rhetoric. Anti-Israel rhetoric from Iran is routine, but you need more than talk to fight a war. You have to have the means to attack the enemy. Unless Israel is planning a nuclear first strike on Iran with its own long-range missiles, both sides lack the means to lend substance to their threats.

EDWARD FUREY

Woodhaven, N.Y.

Ha, beat you to it.
damn you!

You seem to be everywhere I want to post. You are quickly turning out to be one of my favorite USAmerican :)

-snip-


I would certainly hold it against Isreal, and I'm absolutely sure that many, many others would be extremely pissed off too. You might not hold it against them, but I'm sure that everyone understands that killing millions, whatever their religion or ethnicity, or even which side of the war they're on, is utterly wrong.

Self-defense is wrong?

So any nation that is attacked, should just shut up, lay back and enjoy it?

Have you checked with any sovereign nations about that opinion, that retaliation for an attack is "utterly wrong?"

(sorry all, just had to say something, even if someone else already said it better)

Since neither side can ACTUALLY prove they were the 'first' inhabitants of the land... and since, let's face it - that makes no difference... surely, the fact that the 'Palestinians' where THERE until an enforced relocation, gives them some kind of preference?

That's just it they weren't. It wasnt as if Jews suddenly flocked to Israel in 1948. There was a DeFacto Israel there from the 1920's onwards. The Palestianians land was sold, legitamately and fairly to the Jews

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

....

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.

...

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el*Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.


And even if they were forcably displaced, they were allowed to return. After the 1948 war the Isralie government passed a law that allowed Arabs who had lived in Israel to return if

- They became Isralie citizens
- They became peaceful, productive citizens
- They renounced viloence

And over 150,000 Arabs have taken up that offer. Its hardly Israel's fault if they chose not to.

The best answer would be to instigate and support a revolution in Iran, exterminate the moolah-cracy, and establish a democratic government in Tehran which would renounce nuclear weapons and allow unfettered inspections.

In other words, support Reza Pahlavi's plan.

(The REAL best answer would also include the Persians reclaiming their heritage, renouncing the evil creed of Islam that was imposed on them, and returning to their ancient Zarathustri religion.)

The best answer would be to instigate and support a revolution in Iran, exterminate the moolah-cracy, and establish a democratic government in Tehran which would renounce nuclear weapons and allow unfettered inspections.

In other words, support Reza Pahlavi's plan.

(The REAL best answer would also include the Persians reclaiming their heritage, renouncing the evil creed of Islam that was imposed on them, and returning to their ancient Zarathustri religion.)

How many Iranians are active in supporting a revolution against the current regime?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

The best answer would be to instigate and support a revolution in Iran, exterminate the moolah-cracy, and establish a democratic government in Tehran which would renounce nuclear weapons and allow unfettered inspections.

In other words, support Reza Pahlavi's plan.

(The REAL best answer would also include the Persians reclaiming their heritage, renouncing the evil creed of Islam that was imposed on them, and returning to their ancient Zarathustri religion.)

I imagine that'll be about as good in the long term as the US' support of Saddam, bin Laden, Pinochet etc.

And Islam isn't evil. I actually want to cave peoples' heads in with bricks when they say that.

What military or financial aid? Financial aid to Israel makes up less than 2% of their GDP. US soldiers have never assisted Israel, and Israel is one of the major arms exporters in the world today. I think people overestimate how much "help" Israel actually gets from the outside world.

Also, I don't know why everyone assumes that a pre emptive attack would start a war. Israel has bombed its nuclear neighbors before and it didn't start a war. History would be against this argument.

Not true.

The Jewish Lobby is so strong that it has managed to extract over 3 trillion dollars from the American taxpayers, since the late 1940's, and have it sent directly into Israel. Not loans, not economy aid, just cold hard cash. The US will NEVER see that money again.

For reference, $3 trillion over 58 years (counting from 1948) is roughly $51.7 billion per year. Israel's yearly budget is $58.04 billion. Israel's GDP is $163.45 billion.

This does not include money provided by private citizens and corporations, which only increases the final sum.

What about "God Bless America"?

Is that any different, really, than Allah Ahkbar?

Yes, every time terrorists kill on behalf of the USA, they shout the following, and it sends a chill down the spines of our enemies every time:

God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above;

From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam,
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.

:sniper: :mp5:

God Bless America Lyrics
by Irving Berlin

Actually plenty of terrorists have killed on behalf of America, shouting "Allahu Akhbar".

It's just something Americans don't like to admit. :D

Actually plenty of terrorists have killed on behalf of America, shouting "Allahu Akhbar".

It's just something Americans don't like to admit. :D

SOME Americans. Some of us are quite aware of the things that we did during the cold war.

There is a significent differnce. Iran is far more psycopathic than the USSR ever was. They see it as their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map. The USSR never thought anything like that about the USA. (I'm not saying all Muslims do that but many of the high powered ones in the Iranian government do)

Hollow rhetoric, my friend.

Iran has not said they will wipe Israel off the map, and I very much doubt you really have an inside track to what the highest echelons of Russian government 'thought'.

The whole Cuba issue points fingers of suspicion at your certainty.

That's just it they weren't. It wasnt as if Jews suddenly flocked to Israel in 1948. There was a DeFacto Israel there from the 1920's onwards. The Palestianians land was sold, legitamately and fairly to the Jews



And even if they were forcably displaced, they were allowed to return. After the 1948 war the Isralie government passed a law that allowed Arabs who had lived in Israel to return if

- They became Isralie citizens
- They became peaceful, productive citizens
- They renounced viloence

And over 150,000 Arabs have taken up that offer. Its hardly Israel's fault if they chose not to.

Let me get this straight... your argument here runs:

It never happened.... and EVEN IF IT DID...

That was about where I gave up.

Iran has not said they will wipe Israel off the map.

Er... they said exactly that. EXACTLY.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm)

Er... they said exactly that. EXACTLY.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm)

And, show me where, in that 'quote' (which, I notice, is quoted in English...) does it say "And we are going to do it"?

I don't know about you, but Ahmadinejad doesn't seem like the type of person to me that would call for the destruction of a country to a rally of supporters, then sit quitely by waiting for others to do it.

I don't know about you, but Ahmadinejad doesn't seem like the type of person to me that would call for the destruction of a country to a rally of supporters, then sit quitely by waiting for others to do it.

What kind of person does he seem like, exactly. What massive genocidal campaigns do you base that on? Because to me, he seems like exactly the kind of person that would say such a thing to gain support while having no intention to begin a war that would likely end his reign before it begins.

I base it on the fact that Iran is the largest state sponsor of international terrorism.

I don't think that he'll acutally use nuclear weapons. No one's that crazed. But he could easily use it as an implied threat to shift power in the Middle East Iran's way. And there's always the chance that some future governement could decide to use it, or that some terrorists could steal it.

meh. israel will nuke iran, and i will be HAPPY they did it. they have already nuked iraq once, and with iran making these kinds of threats against them, better to be safe than sorry. after all, when your people have been persecuted since the dawn of time, u have to be top dog. and we DO give the isrealis money and weapons. they fly US f16s. they have US weaponry. i like the israelis a lot more than iran. plsu in my opinion, the israeli scret service (mossad) is prolly one of the best or THE best in the world. top dog, remember.

I base it on the fact that Iran is the largest state sponsor of international terrorism.

I don't think that he'll acutally use nuclear weapons. No one's that crazed. But he could easily use it as an implied threat to shift power in the Middle East Iran's way. And there's always the chance that some future governement could decide to use it, or that some terrorists could steal it.

Uh-huh. In other words, you base it on idle speculation. He never said they would do it. You have no evidence they would. They don't appear to have the means to actually do anything. He appears to be trying to get people riled up in order to bolster his support. Same kind of things the US politicians do all the time. If a president could win by declaring that France is going to be bombed into glass there would be a candidate saying it right now, even if it would be political suicide to actually try and do it.

IAnd Islam isn't evil. I actually want to cave peoples' heads in with bricks when they say that.

Bring it on, my friend.

BTW: have you studied the Koran? How about the Hadith? Some of us have. Know your enemy.

Here ares some of my favorites (and there are SO many):

From Bukhari Hadith, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: "Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a: The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

Source: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/hadeeth/

Imagine that: a so-called prophet who rapes a nine-year-old girl and approves of spousal abuse. (Well, at least he gives the wives a full day to recover from being beaten.)

Islam is in fact irredeemably evil.

omgz evil evil i say!



You know, I don't recall ever seeing you post on any subject unless you're talking shit about how evil Islam is. Either you're very limited in what you discuss (a self-confessed Crusader) or your someone's puppet.

Iran: If the US attacks us, Israel will pay the price.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/nuclear_iran_dc

Native Americans formed political 'states' in response to Imperialism. When I use the term "nation" I'm using it in an anthropological sense. While Native Americans consisted of valid political and national entities, Arab "Palestinians" never did. As thus, the two groups are hardly the same. The former had rights as an autonomous group, while the later was not really a nation at all to have any such rights.

And if we use the reasoning that the ancestors of indiginous groups have legal rights to their ancestors land, as we must do to claim that modern day Palestinians or Native Americans have legal rights to any land (because most of the "natives" have died off, all in the former case), then we must accept that the Jews have full legal rights to that land, as they are the oldest indiginous group that were expelled.

You just can't have it both ways. If ancestry gives you legal rights to the land, as is argued for Native Americans, then Jews have legal rights to that whole area. And if ancestry does not, but the rule of law does, then Israel has legal rights to that land as well.
1. Based on what? You keep saying this, but this is the first time I've heard of it.

2. We are not claiming legal rights to the land today. Even though it was stolen from our people by a corrupt and racist government.

3. Israel has legal rights to rule the land. But it's share of the land is limited. It, at the least, owes serious reparations to the Palestinian people just as Americans owe serious reparations to the Native Americans.

True, but then again, the US has started how many wars since the last time Iran started one? If I'm not mistaken, the last time Iran was in a war was with Iraq and I believe Hussein was the aggressor in that one. That's not to say that Iran has been a perfect citizen--their connections to al Qaeda are far stronger than those of most countries--but in terms of national aggression, they've really been quite quiet.
Yeah, they conduct most of their agression through Hezbollah and by conducting terrorism with their Quods corps. Like when they blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut or the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia. That makes them quiet I guess.

Neither did Iran. And still doesn't.
Of course not. Iran doesn't fly planes into buildings. It uses explosives.

<snip>

Bukhari's sayings does not Islam make (although many muslims and non-muslims think so in their ignorance).

Why can Israel not 'tolerate' Iranian Nuclear weaponry, but you expect Iran to just suck it up that Israel already has that same nuclear technology?
Simple. Israel needs it to guarantee it's existence. Iran's only use for it is to attack Israel.