[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't 100% agree with your statement, but even if I did, I don't see the point you're making vis-à-vis politically correct rules of engagement.

Only that the first case is much more susceptible to 'politically correct' rules of engagement than the second.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you joking?

We were able to flatten Saddam's entire army in less than a month using our "politically correct" tactics.

Edit: were we using politically incorrect tactics in Afghanistan? Was that why we were initially so successful there?

No, I wasn't joking. We indeed destroyed Iraq's military...but that was only the first step. We failed with step number 2 which would be securing the country.

Afghanistan is a NATO action not a "we" action, but even so, I don't see much of a difference between the two. The US was successful at the beginning of both campaigns, however, Afghanistan is starting to show signs of failure as well.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*shrug*

Depends on how you look at it, I think. As many times as it's happened in recent history, I think at least a significant number of people would disagree. Perhaps it runs back to the Devil we know vs. the Devil we don't?

The Devil You Know is still the Devil.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Only that the first case is much more susceptible to 'politically correct' rules of engagement than the second.

Yes. But that doesn't make the latter impossible, which was the point I was addressing.

Originally Posted by idjeff 

No, I wasn't joking. We indeed destroyed Iraq's military...but that was only the first step. We failed with step number 2 which would be securing the country.

Maybe this is semantic, but I see that first step as accomplishing a military/political goal with a "politically correct" fought war.

Did we not accomplish a military/political goal in GW I in as politically correct a manner as possible?

I just don't buy the argument that our troubles in Iraq are because Bush and Rumsfeld weren't hardass enough.

Originally Posted by idjeff 

Afghanistan is a NATO action not a "we" action, but even so, I don't see much of a difference between the two. The US was successful at the beginning of both campaigns, however, Afghanistan is starting to show signs of failure as well.

Hmmm. The main reason I've heard for the failures in Afghanistan were the redeployment of a mess of those troops to Iraq.

Same problem. Not enough troops.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes. But that doesn't make the latter impossible, which was the point I was addressing.

OK, I'm just saying much, much more difficult, not impossible.

I just don't buy the argument that our troubles in Iraq are because Bush and Rumsfeld weren't hardass enough.

No, it's because they weren't clever enough.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

OK, I'm just saying much, much more difficult, not impossible.

Agreed. I'd say to the tune of 750,000 more troops difficult, which just happens to be the number taken from Petraeus's counterinsurgency manual.

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, it's because they weren't clever enough.

Ah well, too clever in some places, not clever enough in others.

I'd pin it more on cockiness. Specifically from Bush.

Don't get me wrong, Rumsfeld was one hell of a cocky mother****er, but I think he had good reason to be. The man is a frigging killing machine.

When it comes to Bush... let's just say that if he was as good a President as Rumsfeld was a Secretary of Defense, Bush would have known how vastly inappropriate his own cockiness was, regardless of how appealing he found it in his inferiors.

Bush used to call the guy "Rumstud".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Bush is far worse than Ahmadinejad

Sorry Taliesin, after reading that first part, I don't think anything you could say after it, could have that much merit. (BTW I did read it, and I was right)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

And did you guys notice how Kev never answered my questions?

If I didn't, it would be the first time. Was the question directed towards me? If it was, please repeat it and I will do my best at answering it.

As far as you calling out anyone doing this... come on Sayf, you are the KING of dodging questions you don't like the answers to.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Sorry Taliesin,

You are forgiven, but be aware that ignorance is not always bliss.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Oh, I saw what you did there. Not that such silliness helps your argument..

I am not saying Bush doesn't have his faults. He does. Nor is he my even top 5 fav presidents.

But to say he is more dangerous than Ahmadinejad is ridiculous. And anyone that believes that makes me think they lack any common sense what-so-ever.

You based your argument on not what Bush HAS done, but that he is dangerous because of what he COULD do.

Since I don't want to go into the projection route. I choose to judge them on their KNOWN merits. Not what COULD happen.

When Bush starts having people murdered over their sexual orientation then get back with me.

Or when Bush starts becoming a Holocaust denier. Or an Anti-Semantic raving loon. Or an ex (well not really ex, lets not kid ourselves) terrorist.

And no, spin all you want. Bush isn't a terrorist. That's moon-bat talk.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I choose to judge them on their KNOWN merits. Not what COULD happen.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you show me where Ahmedinejad has killed more? It's pretty clear who is more dangerous to the world.

When Bush starts having people murdered over their sexual orientation then get back with me.

Ahmedinejad hasn't. The Iranian parliament (under the Council) has. You over-estimate his power.

But his comments on this in ColU was idiotic, but doesn't Bush (and you) believe that Homosexuality doesn't exist? Haven't you both said it's a lifestyle (notice the difference between homosexuality and a choice of lifestyle)?

Or when Bush starts becoming a Holocaust denier. Or an Anti-Semantic raving loon.

YouTube - Iran's Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

And no, spin all you want. Bush isn't a terrorist. That's moon-bat talk.

That's true. He's just a mass-murdering sociopath. There's a big difference.


Oh, and the questions? Want to try to answer them? I've posted three times, they aren't hard to find

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush killed all those people? Really? Did he?

Why instead of blaming Bush, blame those that are causing it. Those that are trying to stop what most of the Iraqis want? It isn't Bush that keeps fueling the fires and keeping the war going. It's those that don't want Iraq or the Iraqi's to prosper properly. But would rather see them suffer under another Saddam, or worse. Those deaths are the faults of people that are in say Iran, giving weapons to terrorists just because they believe in their deluded minds that US is the "GREAT SATAN" If your argument was so just, you'd not have to revert to intellectual dishonesty like this.

Ahmedinejad hasn't. The Iranian parliament (under the Council) has. You over-estimate his power.

Do you think he would try to stop them? I mean he claims no homosexuals exist in Iran. Yet they are killing them. So they must exist. What he probably means is, there is no problem because they murder them. You'd think you'd be more concerned with a country that murders homosexuals than one that simply wont let them get "marriages"

But his comments on this in ColU was idiotic, but doesn't Bush (and you) believe that Homosexuality doesn't exist? Haven't you both said it's a lifestyle (notice the difference between homosexuality and a choice of lifestyle)?

I don't know what Bush has said, but *I* certainly haven't said that. Homosexuality isn't a choice.

YouTube - Iran's Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

Again the guy talks out of both sides of his mouth. I can give you many different texts of him claiming it was all make believe.

That's true. He's just a mass-murdering sociopath. There's a big difference.

More intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, and the questions? Want to try to answer them? I've posted three times, they aren't hard to find

Wow, what was so hard with just asking them again? If I wanted questions answered so badly., and made such a big deal of it as you did, you'd think you'd have posted them.

You don't want real discussion. You just wanna play white text games and attack.

Asking someone to answer a question of yours, and when they say they will, You telling them to go find it again themselves is about as obnoxious as it gets.

If you are really interested in me answering your questions, like you claimed you were you'll ask them again. If not, I think it's obvious you were just playing the game.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Bush killed all those people? Really? Did he?

He declared war on the independent nation of Iraq. All that follows is his responsibility and no one else's. (especially after it has come to light that SH offered to go into exile before the war).

You'd think you'd be more concerned with a country that murders homosexuals than one that simply wont let them get "marriages"

Actually.... you'd think that people would worry more about a nation that starts a war ever 5 years or so rather than a nation that has draconian laws about homosexuals. A couple of hundred thousand people are dead because of the choices the US president has made in the last few years. The same can not be said about Ahmedinejad.

I don't know what Bush has said, but *I* certainly haven't said that. Homosexuality isn't a choice.

So you've actually learned something since I was here the last time.

Again the guy talks out of both sides of his mouth. I can give you many different texts of him claiming it was all make believe.

It's quite convenient for you guys to always say he is lying when he says something you can't really disagree with and then claim he's telling the truth when he says something that suits your agenda. But then, you are raised to hate a whole nation. What else should we expect of you?

More intellectual dishonesty.

Calling me a liar (again)?

Wow, what was so hard with just asking them again? If I wanted questions answered so badly., and made such a big deal of it as you did, you'd think you'd have posted them.

You quoted them...... look back a few posts (end of page 2).

You don't want real discussion. You just wanna play white text games and attack.

Actually I prefer a cup of tea and good weather.....

Asking someone to answer a question of yours, and when they say they will, You telling them to go find it again themselves is about as obnoxious as it gets.

Perhaps. But not as obnoxious as quoting those questions and then asking "Where are they?".

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Oh, I saw what you did there. Not that such silliness helps your argument..

I can only hope you saw what I did there: I forgave you for your ignorance. If that is silly from me, then it's my bad.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not saying Bush doesn't have his faults. He does. Nor is he my even top 5 fav presidents.


But to say he is more dangerous than Ahmadinejad is ridiculous. And anyone that believes that makes me think they lack any common sense what-so-ever.

You based your argument on not what Bush HAS done, but that he is dangerous because of what he COULD do.

Since I don't want to go into the projection route. I choose to judge them on their KNOWN merits. Not what COULD happen.

You have completely misunderstood my point, I'm not talking about potential dangers but about actually done harm. True, the US has thousands of nukes and potentially if used they could do a lot of harm, but that's not what I'm going about. The problem is not the potential danger, but the actual harm done by the US's public and secret foreign policy.

I'm saying US, because Bush is merely the latest face to represent the US. The US is the biggest weapon-trader on this planet, equipping militias in nearly all conflicts of the thirdworld.
Through decades, the US installed through CIA-induced regimechanges and supported pro-US-dictatorships in south-america , the middle-east and asia.
The US used and uses economic instruments to torture economies of states that don't want to be the lackey of the US, with the worst form being economic sanctions/embargoes through the UN-SC.

All that and more, not even mentioning the activities of the various secret agencies and paramilitary units, means in the end that the US is far more dangerous and harmful than Iran, simply because of it's power to do that and act that way.

The US might be fantastic for US-citizens within the US-borders, because of the rule of law, but outside of the US, given its economic and military power as well as having the luxury of having a veto-power in the UN-SC, the foreign-policy-makers and executive powers have and had pretty much a blanque-cheque and immunity to act the way they wanted and they used the opportunities thoroughly, espescially on the back of the thirdworld.

Most of the time, the US was fine with acting by proxy, and the goal of foreign policy was most of the time the same, namely to allow american companies to make a lot of profits. Everything else merely served/serves that goal, wars, regimechanges, WTO-, IMF-, and worldbank-policies, relief-work, alliances, security...
That's after all the era of capitalism and everyone serves the mammon.

Britain and France, Russia and China do likewise, but the US outpaces them in that regard many times over.

The effect though is very harmful to the citizens of the thirdworld, so to compare Iran's danger and harm to the US' one is like comparing an ant to an elephant.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When Bush starts having people murdered over their sexual orientation then get back with me.

Remember, murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another human. In Iran it's obviously part of the law to punish every outside-marriage-sexual activity, be it rape, adultery, fornication or homsexual intercourse, if witnessed by four persons, with varying degrees from lashes up to execution.

Since it's a religious law that is being interpreted by scholars and excercised by the judiciary, Ahmadinejad has no hand in it.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Or when Bush starts becoming a Holocaust denier.

Ahmadinejad is flirting with holocaust denial, but he is yet not convinced either way. Probably he is using holocaust denial as a political instrument to gain support among sunni radicals.

Bush is in denial of many things.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Or an Anti-Semantic raving loon. Or an ex (well not really ex, lets not kid ourselves) terrorist.

Oh, Bush is definietly an anti-semantic raving loon, he is even famous for it.

As to terrorism, the US doesn't have to use terrorism, it is powerful enough to use direct military force, and yet despite the US' power it often resorts to terrorism in cases where the US can't convince its public to use direct military force.
Terrorism is a tool to achieve a political goal. When the US wants to see a certain political goal to be achieved and the normal economic, diplomatic and political instruments are not suitable to achieve the wished result, but at the same time a direct military force-use is not sellable to the US-public, terrorism is used, through the CIA, that then recruits, trains and funds local rebels to do the dirty work, and if no rebels are available to be instrumentalised, they do it themselves through assassinations.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And no, spin all you want. Bush isn't a terrorist. That's moon-bat talk.

Terror is nothing but a tool, it gets used mostly by weak people, that have no other way to project power, nonetheless the US as a powerful nation used the tool of terror when the use of direct force was either not possible because it could lead to a war with another nuclear power or when the US-public could not be convinced of such an activity.

Bush didn't have to resort to terror, after 9/11 gave him enough justification to convince the US-public to use direct force. Direct force though is much more lethal and effective than terrorism.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

He declared war on the independent nation of Iraq. All that follows is his responsibility and no one else's. (especially after it has come to light that SH offered to go into exile before the war).

That may be how YOU see it. But that doesn't fit with reality.

Actually.... you'd think that people would worry more about a nation that starts a war ever 5 years or so rather than a nation that has draconian laws about homosexuals.

More spins. Yeah we shouldn't have went to Bosnia, shouldn't have helped a lot of people with these "wars"

A couple of hundred thousand people are dead because of the choices the US president has made in the last few years.

And even more people would be dead if nothing was done.

So you've actually learned something since I was here the last time.

Learned something? I've always believed that. I've just said there was no proof of it. But thanks for the pretentious condescending banter anyhow.

It's quite convenient for you guys to always say he is lying when he says something you can't really disagree with and then claim he's telling the truth when he says something that suits your agenda.

No, I say he talks out both sides of his mouth. That he says one thing to appease one group of people, and another to appease another group. Don't know what to really believe. I do know the things he HAS said I would never say regardless of who I was referring to.

But then, you are raised to hate a whole nation. What else should we expect of you?

You speaking about Iran being raised to hate a nation? Because I wasn't raised to hate ANY nation. I usually go after people like this man, or their governments. Not whole nations. Like OTHER PEOPLE IN HERE DO. (Like say, we were raised to hate a whole nation when we weren't, someone has lied to you) However there people that teach other people to hate the US from the time they are born. That we are the "Great Satan" that we are the cause of all evil. This brainwashing is what the real problem is. These people that believe this need deprogrammed.

Calling me a liar (again)?

No, I am saying you are being intellectually dishonest by calling bush a mass-murderer. I guess I could have called it an obnoxiously grand exaggeration. Would that make you feel better? If you don't like people making said statements about the things you say, stop making such statements.

You quoted them...... look back a few posts (end of page 2).

So the answer is no, no you do not want me to answer them. Understood.

Perhaps. But not as obnoxious as quoting those questions and then asking "Where are they?".

If I quoted them, and then responded I responded to your questions. I may not have given you the answers YOU wanted. But I did indeed respond.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I can only hope you saw what I did there: I forgave you for your ignorance.

You need to first look at the man in the mirror before doing such a thing. I assure you, I am not the one "ignorant" here.

You and Sayf's distorted views and illogical conclusions simply don't mesh with the facts.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

1. Has any sitting US president given an interview to foreign (or national) reporters where those reporters are allowed to ask whatever they want?

2. Has any sitting US president given an interview to foreign (or national) reporters where they have not received the questions before the interview happens?

3. Has any sitting US president given foreign students the chance to freely ask them any question they want without preparation?

4. Which country bans their own nationals of going to study or do business in countries they "don't like", Iran or the US?

5. What in the following video is Evil™?

YouTube - Iran's Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

We both know that Ahmadinejad talks out of both sides of his mouth Sayf. Oh and BTW there are NO homosexuals in India. None.

And if there were, It's America's fault! We've made them that way!!

But it's not surprising seeing you taking up for another Israel/USA hating anti-Semitic baffoon.

here you go Kev..... Spin away

[Kevin]

So yes, I replied. Just not in the way you wanted. No need to spin away.

And for the record, I thought those "questions" where rhetorical. That you were making statements and not actually asking questions. Since you obviously knew the answers.

Not that any of those points mean a whole lot. You take innocent things, and hyperbole them into something more.

When one has to revert to such things, one has already lost.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So yes, I replied. Just not in the way you wanted. No need to spin away.

And for the record, I thought those "questions" where rhetorical. That you were making statements and not actually asking questions. Since you obviously knew the answers.

Not that any of those points mean a whole lot. You take innocent things, and hyperbole them into something more.

When one has to revert to such things, one has already lost.

Actually, I was hoping someone would be able to answer those questions for me. Because surely the President of the country claiming to be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave™ is able to deal with some difficult and unprepared questions....

But then it dawned on me. If one seeks answers you, Kev, are not the person one should talk to. Talking to you only leads to headaches.


So, anyone else want to answer those questions?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Actually, I was hoping someone would be able to answer those questions for me. Because surely the President of the country claiming to be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave™ is able to deal with some difficult and unprepared questions....

What is noble about answering on the spot questions if you are going to just talk out both sides of your mouth Sayf? It's easy to do if you just make up crap on the spot like he did. Sure there are no gays in Iran...
So him talking without anything being prepared, or him seeing the questions beforehand don't impress me. And if you are claiming that he is a better man because of this, I really honestly don't know what to say....

But then it dawned on me. If one seeks answers you, Kev, are not the person one should talk to.

Ah, a character assassination .. your posts are never complete without one. Think the next time you can just do us both a favor and skip that part?

It really ads nothing to the discussion but silly pretentious chest pounding.

I suggest you go pee on a tree instead.

Though I do find comparing our sigs kinda amusing. Mine is about two partners for peace. And yours is of a sword...

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I suggest you go pee on a tree instead.

I'm back on Iceland. We don't have trees.

Though I do find comparing our sigs kinda amusing. Mine is about two partners for peace. And yours is of a sword...

1. Yes, it's the sword that will hopefully cut the bond between those two nations. Hopefully some day soon.

2. That pact between those two countries has nothing to do with peace. Peace has been on the table for several years. Both those nations have ignored it every single time it's mentioned. The pact between them is based on dominance and occupation. As you can see by those two nations occupying (not necessarily together) Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and part of Syria as well as possibly a part of Lebanon.

Luckily my single sword can do no such thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

I'm back on Iceland. We don't have trees.

Well you have dogs right? What do they pee on to mark their territory?

1. Yes, it's the sword that will hopefully cut the bond between those two nations. Hopefully some day soon.

See, thats the difference. My sig is to bring people together. Your sig is about splitting people apart.
Literally. I say that says enough in itself.

I'd like to add another girl into my sig. But she doesn't play nice with others. And is continually trying to break the other two friends apart. Sad.

2. That pact between those two countries has nothing to do with peace.

Sure it has. As our two countries are countries that are striving for everyone to get along. For the fighting to stop. For the people to STOP attacking Israel. Again, Israel gets left alone, there will be no Israel attacking.
On other other hand, there is a group that wont be happy till israel is pushed into the sea. And they are the majority. So regardless of what YOU would like to happen, it's not what the people doing the HARM wants to happen.

Peace has been on the table for several years.

Yup, and the Palestinians smack it back in their faces every-time. Or something will be agreed on, and then the same group will attack Israel the next day to make sure peace isn't in place.

Both those nations have ignored it every single time it's mentioned.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Pushing people out into the sea may inadvertently cause "peace" but that isn't a viable option. And it's not gonna happen. If anyone even tried, they wouldn't have the chance to try it again.

The pact between them is based on dominance and occupation.

This has been debunked so many times in here it's not even funny. Yet you keep repeating it.

Grasp that sword tightly, you're gonna need it if it keeps up.

Not that this thread is about "The Great Satan" Or Israel.

It's about the REAL evil in this world. His name is Ahmadinejad. Once a terrorists...

[Sayf-Allah]

How convenient to "forget" or "ignore" (you choose) commenting on all the countries Israel and the US occupies.

Doesn't fit in with your "Cute Cuddly Harmless Peaceful enough to make one puke Countries" theory does it?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

How convenient to "forget" or "ignore" (you choose) commenting on all the countries Israel and the US occupies.

You can never tell what you are talking about half the time Sayf because you speak in generic vague terms. That way you can go back and say "no I really meant this" or so you can't be held by your words. It wasn't men doing anything. Just believing you meant one thing, and not the other because you were being vague.

Doesn't fit in with your "Cute Cuddly Harmless Peaceful enough to make one puke Countries" theory does it?

Sayf if my sig bothers you so much, I'll change it. And it's hardly that. I am not the one pretending my "side" is the righteous one.

I am not the one that makes excuses for known terrorists.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Sayf if my sig bothers you so much, I'll change it. And it's hardly that. I am not the one pretending my "side" is the righteous one.

To let your sig bother me I'd first have to care about anything you say/do. I don't so feel free to put that signature up again.

And, you're the one who started bringing up the signatures. Not me.

I am not the one that makes excuses for known terrorists.

You have been one of the most vociferous supporters of Israel. A terrorist state if there ever was one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

To let your sig bother me I'd first have to care about anything you say/do. I don't so feel free to put that signature up again.

Why do you have to post insults in your posts Sayf? And I like my triangles.

And, you're the one who started bringing up the signatures. Not me.

I never said you brought them up first..

You have been one of the most vociferous supporters of Israel. A terrorist state if there ever was one.

Ooooo too bad we aren't playing scrabble! And yeah.. terrorist state....

In Bizarro world.

I am not Jewish, nor am I from Israel. Nor do I practice Judaism. I have no reason to have any blind devotion to either side. I just pick which side I believe is in the right.

You on the other hand, aren't really unbiased. And I am betting you've been taught to believe Israel is this evil for so long, you believe it's the norm.

Israel isn't the group that is trying to push the other into the sea. Israel just wants to be left a lone.

I dare them to leave Israel be. To stop the cowardly terrorist attacks. But they wont. Cause they know if they do, Israel will have NO REASON to retaliate and therefore will leave the Palestinians be. And they don't want the world to see that.

[peeb]

Sayf, I don't think there is any point in engaging Kevin. He's either deliberately lying or irretrievably stupid, either way, you're not going to be able to educate him.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Sayf, I don't think there is any point in engaging Kevin. He's either deliberately lying or irretrievably stupid, either way, you're not going to be able to educate him.

I figured that out a couple of years ago, but thanks for the heads up.

[ebuddy]

"Palestinians", pawns since day one. Israel, occupying force of territory the size of New Jersey.

[vmarks]

peeb, Kevin, Sayf-allah

This is not a thread about you guys. Knock off the character assassinations.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not the one pretending my "side" is the righteous one.

Two posts later...

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I have no reason to have any blind devotion to either side. I just pick which side I believe is in the right.

Have you ever considered that both sides (or all eight sides) might be right, from their perspective? That's why it's imperative that we shouldn't cheerlead for war. It's... dare I say... evil.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Have you ever considered that both sides (or all eight sides) might be right, from their perspective?

Thankfully, from an objective perspective we know that not to be true.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thankfully, from an objective perspective we know that not to be true.

You have an objective perspective? Those things are hard to find.

Can I borrow it?

I'm not saying there is no "wrong", but simplifying issues down to black and white (or good and evil) is unproductive when the other side is also convinced they're "right". Instead of ultimatums and coercion, perhaps compromise and diplomacy is a better path.

Ah, who am I kidding. Humans suck. Bombs away!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I'm not saying there is no "wrong", but simplifying issues down to black and white (or good and evil) is unproductive when the other side is also convinced they're "right". Instead of ultimatums and coercion, perhaps compromise and diplomacy is a better path.

What if a substantial portion of the people you're trying to compromise or exercise diplomacy with don't want you to exist and are convinced that you shouldn't? Is there a reasonable compromise?

Sometimes things really are simple and other times they are not. I agree with your assessment of human nature though. It does suck.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Palestinians", pawns since day one. Israel, occupying force of territory the size of New Jersey.

Ok, let's transfer Israel to New Jersey, I'm sure the 8 million people+ living right now there will gladly relocate to some of the other 49 states in the US, and I'm also sure the US won't have a problem to grant Israel independence with a full fledged army right there, and in order to prepare for Israel's natural expansion-needs the surrounding states won't have a problem to shrink away in the process.

The area is also very similar, located at the sea, although maybe a bit colder than in the middle-east, but on the other hand it has much more water.

An advantage is also that there are already millions of jews/israelis in the US making the change that much softer, and a real bonus is that the americans are far less anti-zionistic and antijewish than the arabs, and generally much more tolerant and openminded.

ebuddy, go for it.

Taliesin

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Ok, let's transfer Israel to New Jersey,

That's actually a pretty good idea - the US could set an example - show how unreasonable the Palestinians are being about all of this.

[subego]

Heard this thrown out on Bill Maher:

The proper response to Ahmadinejad would have been to send Condi to speak at the University of Tehran.

I like this idea.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Ok, let's transfer Israel to New Jersey. . . .

Could you tell me why it's appropriate to move the single Jewish country from the only Jewish homeland when there are currently in existence 22 Arab countries and 53 total Muslim controlled countries? Why shouldn't the so-called Palestinians be transferred to the much larger country that was previously carved out of Jewish land as the country for the Arabs of the region - Jordan - which has a population that predominately identifies itself as "Palestinian"? Why should the Jewish people continually be made to receive punishment because of non-Jewish greediness and hatred toward the Jew?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Ok, let's transfer Israel to New Jersey, I'm sure the 8 million people+ living right now there will gladly relocate to some of the other 49 states in the US, and I'm also sure the US won't have a problem to grant Israel independence with a full fledged army right there, and in order to prepare for Israel's natural expansion-needs the surrounding states won't have a problem to shrink away in the process.

The area is also very similar, located at the sea, although maybe a bit colder than in the middle-east, but on the other hand it has much more water.

An advantage is also that there are already millions of jews/israelis in the US making the change that much softer, and a real bonus is that the americans are far less anti-zionistic and antijewish than the arabs, and generally much more tolerant and openminded.

ebuddy, go for it.

Taliesin

Sure, they can just level Newark and move Jerusalem there brick by brick. It would be an improvement for NJ, and would solve the US problem of not being able to nuke the ME.

I like this, let's move forward with it!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Your perspective of invasion is misguided and narrow in order to further your agenda of maligning the US and Bush.

This post can pretty much sum up this whole thread.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

... And Kevin steps in right on cue. No, it isn't 99%, but it is certainly a majority. People like Kevin managed to get Bush reelected by a majority. If they could, they'd reelect Bush again, and they'd spend the next fifty years wasting money and lives in Iraq.

Pretty much tells me you have know Idea what "Kevin" would do. Just spewing leftist rhetoric. RAH RAH.

I've already made clear many times what I'd like to do with the US government for those that actually pay attention, and don't make silly projectionary posts that have little to do with reality.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by peeb 

you're not going to be able to educate him.

At least you are right about one part. Except for educate is the wrong word. Brainwash would be the correct one.

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Have you ever considered that both sides (or all eight sides) might be right, from their perspective?

I am sure certain people have good intentions for the wrong reasons.

That's why it's imperative that we shouldn't cheerlead for war. It's... dare I say... evil.

I would never chearlead for war. War sucks. I hate it.

But to act like sometimes it's not needed is living in a utopian society that simply doesn't exist.

And simply isn't being realistic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Ok, let's transfer Israel to New Jersey...

I guess I don't understand why another proposal to displace Jews is relevant to what I've said.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I guess I don't understand why another proposal to displace Jews is relevant to what I've said.

It wasn't. Why does it matter where they live? People need to accept Israel is here to stay. As soon as that happens, the quicker we will have peace.

And not any minute sooner. Again, Israel isn't going anywhere.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It wasn't. Why does it matter where they live? People need to accept Israel is here to stay. As soon as that happens, the quicker we will have peace.

And not any minute sooner. Again, Israel isn't going anywhere.

Israel's foundation is based on a crime, the driving out of hundreds of thousands of palestinians and the stealing of their land and homes, and afterwards used every opportunity to make war in order to expand, espescially into the waterrich parts of its surroundings.

Israel should apologise for the crime, grant a symbolic right of return for the palestinians, pay reparations so that the right of return is not practiced in reality, withdraw to its internationally legitimised borders before the 67-war, release all palestinian and other arabic prisoners of war and help to create a liveable souvereign and independent palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital.

As soon as that happens, the quicker we will have peace.

Currently Israel is an oppressive and aggressive regime defying international law, which is inacceptable.

But even if Israel changes its ways and follows through with the demands stated above, becomes peaceful and honest, there will be still a lot of arabs that would like to see Israel leaving completely from the middle-east, out of principle, nonetheless they would find themselves to be a strong minority that would grow smaller over time, since the majority would embrace a just, internationally legal and comprehensive peace-agreement.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Israel's foundation is based on a crime

*sigh* Sometimes I don't even know why I talk about Israel in this forum. Does no good.

[Big Mac]

It is almost counter-productive, unfortunately. I wonder why I can't get answers to the questions I posed above.

[Kevin]

You mean this question?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Could you tell me why it's appropriate to move the single Jewish country from the only Jewish homeland when there are currently in existence 22 Arab countries and 53 total Muslim controlled countries? Why shouldn't the so-called Palestinians be transferred to the much larger country that was previously carved out of Jewish land as the country for the Arabs of the region - Jordan - which has a population that predominately identifies itself as "Palestinian"? Why should the Jewish people continually be made to receive punishment because of non-Jewish greediness and hatred toward the Jew?

Yeah it's a good one. You wont get a answer that doesn't somehow blame Israel, or it's creation is a dishonest way however. IMHO.

Regardless of what people in HERE say why they don't want Israel to exist, the reason those that are attacking Israel are the ones that matter. And it's simply petty anti-semantic rah rahing.

You know those evil Jews are tainting their land!!!

[peeb]

It's not that people don't want Israel to exist, it's that that can't be at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's not that people don't want Israel to exist, it's that that can't be at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Israel's existence doesn't imply the extermination of Palestinians. They just have to accept that Israel exists, and to collectively accept it and forge their own future without that particular slice of land.

[Big Mac]

Most of them left their homes voluntarily, peeb. Israel begged them to stay, while their leaders told them to leave so that they won't impede the conquering Arab armies. And their ship sailed 60 years ago. Every other refugee group from the 1940s has long since been settled, and that includes the hundreds of thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes in Arabia and Africa. Israel didn't keep those Jews in refugee camps - they were integrated into Israel because they were Jews who belonged in the Jewish country. Arabs belong in Arab countries. Yet the so-called Palestinians remain as refugees because the Arab and Islamic powers want to keep them as canon fodder in their proxy wars against Israel.