I just find it funny that you're writing this from land that your European ancestors took away from the Native Americans.
Point of counter argument I was faced with the other day... Why shouldn't the US forcibly take all the land and shit that is not being effectively developed / mismanaged / raped / insert verb for anything non-democratic...? Why shouldn't we take and liberate all those countries with resources we want and need? We have the unbelievable military power to do so. Take it use it, civilize the people, industrialize the country and revolutionize the world. Because it's morally reprehensible to force your way on someone else? Is it not equally reprehensible to sit back and watch atrocities take place by despots with no rules whatsoever and with short-sighted ideals? Small section of a friend's tirade the other day, and as he spoke it kinda made sense. Though phrases of precedences come to mind like, "A war to end all wars." I don't necessarily agree with him, but I figured I'd devil's advocate the forums and see what ya'll had to say.
Its is a good point. The problems is WE. U.S has a worse track record. If you engage your self in dealing with foreign countries politics and there conflicts. Some thing you will hear often is US is the only country to use every weapons it makes and deploy in battle field to see its results, excluding WMDs. Makes it very difficult to talk about peace. Off course if our motives are pure and we go in to help without using force. Eventually we will try to take over other country's resources for our use. Not to better them but increase our own power. That will cause internal conflicts which will lead to bigger problems. That contradiction will bring more lawlessness in the land. Leading to bigger corruptions. The problem is in the human nature. Never satisfied with what they have always wanting to acquire more and more. Eventually that intoxication of power blur the line between right way of acquiring power and wrong way of acquiring power. (offcoruse the tipping of balance of power will make other countries react unpredictably, that alone be another mess to deal with) Another problem is pride. FOR EXAMPLE: I was reading in Pakistani newpaper (Jang i think) and few other news paper from foreign countries. The India and Pakistan mess after that Bombay attack. India was about ready to prepare for war. Pakistan issued the statement (not sure how true it is since i am just saying what i read in foreign news papers). Pakistan don't have huge army like India or war plans. But they said they can guarantee India that, they can level India in 8 min. The idea of MAD(mutually assured destruction) is very scary for any advancing nation like India. Thats why a war to end all war will end majority of living things. And then there is History that we suppose to learn from. British colonies. and Befor that the reign of Changez Khan... the list just goes on. There are 100s of other reasons and example why taking land of others with force is not wise choice.
The India/Pakistan situation is probably the most scary thing for me right now. They have so much bad blood between them. I think they have had like 5 wars to date. And there is huge corruption in both governments. (I know about India's first hand) I see it ending badly and with the use of nukes it will make other highly populated countries in the area recieve massive fallout.
Getting off topic. My apologies in advance. I know what you mean. But i am fairly sure those two countries will never wage full on war. They enjoy sniping at each other more then waging war. If you see the border between Inda and Pakistan its just a funny sight. They will shoot across border at times nothing too serious just stupid stuff.
concider (talking about china and india) The resources of the middle east.....that's why we/USA care... YouTube - Did You Know?
they're clearly both pretty prejudice against eachother A conspiracy theory is something that's illogical without any factual proof. political figures who are "actaully" shape shifting reptiles and micro RFID chips in flu vaccinations are conspiracy theory's. Your Gov spends more money on its military and defense budget then it does on all none military spending for everything else its suppose to do as a government, does it not? that does not seam reasonable to me.
well I find the topic of that video interesting, Fatboy Slim might not be the best music choice to try and get a serious message across if you find that stuff interesting you should check out a book called The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman, its a really interesting book I red about globalization and the effect its having on the world, I highly recommend it.
As expected... Israel Using Banned Chemical Weapons in Gaza BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel denies banned weapons use
Unfortunately the fumes dont decentigrate in mid air. It slowly falls down to ground. Anyone without the proper breathing apparatus will receive sever lungs damage. In case of kids if you see there lungs on autopsy table you can see visible damage. May not be the cause of death but it sure reduce survivability. For those who get caught in cross fire.
If we think it, it can be done. The Apollo program taught me this. likewise, if we think this, it can come to pass: YouTube - Playing For Change: Song Around the World "Stand By Me"
This is just getting ridiculous. Today I read two things that made view Israel in a very dark light. 1 - Israel bans Arab parties from participating in the upcoming election. Arabs represent 1/5 of the population of Israel and are not allowed to have political party participate in the upcoming election. These are Israeli citizens, denied the right to form a party. The Associated Press: Israel bans Arab parties from coming election 2 - The IDF seeks to appeal Israel's Supreme Courts ban on the use of human shields. This is a practice already employed by the IDF, they only want to institutionalize its use. BBC NEWS | Middle East | IDF to appeal human shield ban These two stories were the tipping point for me. Israel is clearly an undemocratic state that does not respect human rights and continues to massacare the gazan people. It broke the cease fire and has repeatedly violated international law. Israel deserve immediate boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions.
israel most certainly broke no ceasefire. interestingly enough: "Since Hamas declared an end to the cease-fire, Palestinian terrorists have launched hundreds of rocket and mortar attacks at civilian Israeli targets" Additionally: If the arabs dont want to recognize israel as a country why are they so worried about participating in their government? With regard to the human shield, they are using civilians to negotiate with terrorists to prevent their troop deaths. I see no problem here as long as the civilians see no problem with letting the terrorists live in their neighborhoods. 3000 BC jews owned the land everyone lies the argument seems to go round and round for all the atrocities that both sides seem to commit, only israel seems to want peace. every time there is talk of a cease fire, or a peace plan with a palestinian endstate, they are ready to talk. its the fucking extremist religious fucks that dick everything up and declare genocide. israel is rightfully defending itself by international law, and i support what they are doing and will continue to do so until the other side rescinds their vows to 'wipe israel from the face of the earth' this is obviously an israeli document, but it brings up some very very interesting points with documented support of their position. might bring a different point of view to everyone by reading it http://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf
I started to feel pissed towards Isreal when those articles were read, but then I realized: Why not, that's the standard operating proceedure foe most countries in the middle east for all those complaints. Doesn't make it right by our standards, but the SOP for them is within the regional standards where they live. One big thing I've noticed over the years.......middle easterners can dish it out but not take it.
I was listening on the BBC this morning, the IDF "accidentally" lobbed a white phosphorous shell into the UN Gaza compound near their fuel depot. It can't be safely put out with water, so it's very likely you a loud "BOOM!" within the next hour or two. :lol:
Ranger if you think Hamas broke the cease fire you are being lied to. For those interested in an excellent debate between an extremely pro-Israel former U.S. ambassador and an Israeli critique who is an American academic go to the following. Democracy Now! | Former Amb. Martin Indyk vs. Author Norman Finkelstein: A Debate on Israel's Assault on Gaza and the US Role in the Conflict
An interesting read to be sure Aside from the fact that the poor guy got jumped on a fucking shady ass news station, when all he wanted to do was pimp his book, the counterpoint speaker makes a horridly illogical argument to pretty much every statement this man provided. His attacks are personal and not argumentative, and it feels very strongly to me that he is a propaganda fountain. Apparently israel allegedly broke the ceasefire and was totally in the wrong when they went in on a snatch and grab op in gaza during the period covered. Why did they go and get the men they did? What were the men doing that israel felt they needed to violate an international ceasefire to get them out of service right then? I'll concede the fact that israel most likely violated palestinian sovereignty in gaza during the ceasefire. I'll also concede they did so with a very good reason, otherwise they would not risk violating it. I'll also bring up the fact that over the course of the ceasefire, rocket fire continued to harass israel, although reduced it was still there. Hamas claims that even if israel had not 'violated' the ceasefire that they would only continue to honor the ceasefire if "on condition that Israel eases the blockade." So they are saying they are going to launch rockets if they cant get their playstations? He goes on to claim that the high international court of justice ruled in 2004 that a ludicrous amount of land israel owns is illegal and actually belongs to the palestinians. This may be so, but this sets a dangerous precedent where country boundaries can be redrawn using court systems, risking the sovereignty of many volatile countries around the world. Know what else is illegal under international law? Knowingly targeting civilian populations with munitions, something that only palestinians are guilty of in this conflict (Israel is extremely careful to follow international law when fucking people up, more on this further down). He lectures at length about the fact that at the peace accords the palestinians make concession after concession, yet they are unwilling to make the concession of NOT FUCKING LAUNCHING ROCKETS at israel. Lastly he dares to call israel out on the international legality of their measured response to the daily attacks on their nation. Every single action israel takes militarily is run by a fucking lawyer before it is executed. They do every military action to the very letter of international law that has been seen, voted on, and approved by the UN. They are in no way violating any law in any way shape or form. This, and this alone, is the reason that there has been zero response to the israeli occupation of gaza. They (israel) are in the right, and the world knows it. What he fails to discuss with the people watching the news is the legality of the palestinian terrorists headed by hamas. He neglects to mention the extensive usage of human shields by the hamas fighters. He forgets about the blatant targeting of civilian populations with military attacks. Nothing is said about the fact that a nation's military is wearing civilian clothes to blend in with the civilian population, a clear and unarguable violation of the geneva convetions. All of the above aside, what nobody talks about EVER is the fact that hamas, the government currently in control of gaza, has publicly stated that they want to eleminate all Jews and wipe them from the face of the earth. These people have declared their intent for GENOCIDE and NOTHING is being done about it. The mere intention of genocide is and should be punishable under the UN. If you take a second to open the link below you will see that inciting violence on a group of people with the intent to destroy them is punishable under this. Again, the UN and everyone else in the world is frighteningly quiet on this subject. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia TLDR: I strongly support israel in this war and believe that they are the good guys. I dont believe that all the palestinians are bad, but they need to wake up. Israel has big ass guns and this will end badly for them every time. (Six day war anyone?) Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or you know, we could get a few privates out there with shovels to put some dirt on it just sayin for reference White phosphorus (weapon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think you need to gather more intel... Its not that Arab nation dont recognize Israel as a nation. Countries that dont recognize Israel as a nation; said it before if Israel go back to the land that was given to them in the first place, it will be recognize as a country. If you compare Israeli expansion from the time they were put on that land till now, you will see the huge increase of land take over. I think your are looking at that to linearly... You label individual/ group as terrorist, therefor immediately it must mean they are bad people who just want to destroy the world. The way you looking is base on your prospect. What you calling living with terrorist; for the people who are living there to them these people are fighting to protect them. I respect your view on that but if you ever step in that land as a outside force to maintain a balance, you would quickly learn that there is no good or bad... You have to let go of your prejudice of who is good or bad and deal with the issue being neutral... That's why you cant use civilian as a shield or for negotiating... Negotiation is based on trust... if you dont show that you cant resolve the situation peacefully, unless thats not what you going for.
Yeah, the UN spokesman mentioned something about throwing sand on it. But they had to run it through committee first and get the security council to vote on it... :mrgreen:
Ranger, I agree with you that it was not honest and forthwright for DN (the radio station) to confront Indyk with Finklestein. But I think we should be honest with ourselves, few American politicians or pundits are willing to open debate Israel's case publicly with anyone who is a serious critic of Israel. Finklestein, a jew and grandson to holocaust survivors, is one the leading critics of Israel, and I think Indyk's refusal to debate him is representative of the fear Israeli lobbyist have in debating critics. Furthermore, I suggest a much listening to the broadcast again. Point out to me all the 'personal attacks' Finklestein made. Indyk called Finklestein a propagandist to Hamas. Point to any of the argumentation that Finklestein made that is factually incorrect. Either show me what he said was ad hominem and what he said that was factually incorrect, or accept that when confronted with information contrary to pre-established views you immediately label it as propaganda. Worse yet, you try and degrade the source, DN, by just calling it a shitty ass radio station. DN is not just some 'shitty' station, it is broadcasted internationally, hosted by award winning journalists and has interviewed people ranging from state leaders, like heads of state such as like bill clinton, to the former chairman of the federal reserve. I think where your facutally confused is about the rocket fire during the cease fire. When the cease fire went into affect the rate of rocket fire dropped by 98%. Israel has already recognized the Hamas fired no of the rockets the came out of Gaza during the cease fire. But Israel maintained its blockade, which not only blocked what you blithy assume are playstations, but humanitarian aid including food, water, medicine, fuel, etc. We hear constantly from the pundits in America that no country would accept constant rocket attacks on their country like Israel does. True, but what country would accept a complete blockade of their borders, a blockade that even bars essential goods like food and water. Please tell, what country would accept that? Would the United States accept that? And you believe Israel had a good reason to break the cease fire? What was that good reason? Was a good reason like when Israel used white phosphorous civilian centers? A good reason like when Israel used cluster munitions whose fatalities are 90% civilian? A good reason like when Israel strapped Palestinian children to their jeeps as human shields? Or a good reason like when Israel started to target foreign aid workers? What's the good reason to target members of the red cross again? Oh, but I forgot that everything Israel is legal and approved by the UN. Wait, what's that you say? Then UN overwhelming votes against Israel on all the resolutions against especially regarding resolutions saying it should withdraw to 1967 borders, and the resolutions regarding the security barrier, and Israel's compliance with ICJ? Show me all these resolutions that support Israel, I double fucking dare you. They don't exist, free yourself from the lies and find out the truth. Goto the UN website, they have records of the vote. The world overwhelmingly votes against Israel. You might just respond that the UN is anti-semitic, and that might be true for a few countries, especially Arab countries. But why then does Finland vote against Israel? Why South Korea? Why New Zealand? Is the entire world just antisemitic? Maybe you ask another question, maybe you should ask why it is only the US that supports Israel in these votes? Why is the US the exception? You can talk all you want about the ruthlessness of Hamas, how it never stops launching rockets (even though that is not true, and Israel admits it), or about how Hamas uses human shields, even though Israel is just as bad, or how Hamas wants to commit genocide, even though it has joined the international consensus on reverting to 1967 borders, but in the end your just deceiving yourself? I beg, you just look up the information yourself. Look at the UN resolutions. Find the truth.
thanks for the attention, its truely appreciated not to sound overbearing or anything but i can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that i've done more research than anyone that is reading this thread. iran being the big player over there, they set the precedence for other muslim nations to follow. they do not recognize israel. palestinians for decades have not recognized them as a state. israel acquired all the land it owns today from wars fought to 'wipe them out.' funny how they beat the snot out of the muslims and took land. territorial boundary changes are not supposed to happen in wars... i understand your point with the not being a good / bad. i've been there. i've done that. i have a bit of experience there personally under my belt. it doesnt change the big picture though. the palestinian government was elected by the people. they chose a known and widely recognized terrorist organization to run their country. reap what you sow. i like where this discussion is going, and i continue to appreciate the fact that nobody has taken it personal yet. shows how mature everyone is.
@ Eavanr With regard to the broadcast. The majority of it was indeed civil. The overall tone of ambush is what set me back at first with it. The personal attacks that I was referring too was in fact just a line at the end of the interview. Mr. Finkelstien states: “And regrettably, those lies are again being propagated by Martin Indyk in his book with his pretense that it’s the Palestinians, and not Israel and the United States, which are the main obstacles to peace. “ I can understand that he feels strongly about an issue, but its hardly debate content to accuse someone of lying, much less that they wrote and entire book on the lie. About DN specifically, I stand corrected and apologize. I did not research the source and made flippant comments about it. I'm sure its a fine radio station. I'm merely disappointed that they would ambush someone and force them into a debate for which he was not prepared, and from the looks of it, uncomfortable about conducting. The guy wanted to pimp his book. Pertaining to the rocket fire after the 2008 ceasefire, any rockets, hamas launched or no, would be a violation of that ceasefire would they not? All both sides want in any ceasefire agreement is to cease firing of munitions. I understand that the blockade was referring to humanitarian aid and not in fact play stations. After doing a bit of digging it appears that after the January 2008 ceasefire israel relaxed the blockade to allow in more humanitarian aid. I could not for the life of me find the specifics on how much and how often. I could see how the palestinians would dislike any amount of blockade, but I can also see how israel would want to have control of shipments of anything going into an area that has had a history of launching munitions at them. Comparing the US to gaza in reference to blockades is hardly fair. Firstly, the US has no history whatsoever of launching rockets into any neighboring country and hiding our fighters in the civilian population so that we can cry foul when counterattacks hit civilians. No country should or does accept a blockade that prevents the most basic of humanitarian supplies. Even while fighting the war, when the blockade would be at its most constricted, israel allowed stops in the war, time outs if you will, for humanitarian aid to be delivered to the occupied populace. The matter of who broke the ceasefire when seems to be open to debate at the moment, so i'll refrain from arguing the point of what reason israel might have had to launch an incursion into gaza before the ceasefire broke. Israel had perfectly good reason to use white phosphorus wherever it pleases as long as its used correctly. WP serves as a very effective visual shield, and fighter deterrent in this case, where the enemy combatants (as viewed from israel's side) have almost no personal protective gear. The cluster bomb munitions and the child shield jeep incident are inexcusable, and I agree with you on that point. I personally see absolutely no reason to use cluster bombs in today's dynamic battlefield. The incidents where IDF soldiers have used children as shields is beyond explanation and the soldiers and commanders should be dealt with harshly. From what I have been able to read it is not a standard operating procedure, so the problem does not seem to be systemic. On the other hand, the palestinian use of human shields by hiding in population centers is equally inexcusable and should be dealt with as well. Israel targeted red crescent vehicles because the enemy combatants were using illegal tactics to conduct war. As soon as munitions were stored in the vehicles and the vehicles were used to transport fighters, they stopped being protected and became valid military targets. As stated in my previous post, the ICJ has ruled that israel's wall construction is illegal and must be stopped, dismantled, etc. I hardly see why they ruled that way, and cannot find any official documents explaining the ruling. What I can say is that Other nations have borders, whether natural or man made (see us southern border with mexico) that are not questioned on an international court. If the two state solution is what everyone desires as an end state, then what's the harm in a wall. All it does is restrict the movement of people, who would otherwise be restricted by risking soldier's lives guarding a line in the dirt. Here is the UN resolution for the creation of a Jewish and Arab two state solution. The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181 This justifies Israel's claim to exist. On June 5 1967 Israel responded to arab aggression in the region and not only defeated, but absolutely crushed the combined might of all the following: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan. Israel, as spoils of war, gained a bit of land. During the Suez canal dispute / war, israel took control of parts of the Sinai peninsula. Again, spoils of war. Over the years israel has ceded vast tracts of this land back to their original ownership to placate international pressure and on the promise of peace. Its highly likely that israel currently feels that the small amount of land they still hold from before the 1967 war is the last and only bargaining chip they have for a peace process, and are attempting to get maximum value out of trading that for peace. Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Suez Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I find it hard to accept an argument based on majority rule. What I can accept however is people doing the right thing for the right reasons. I believe that Israel needs our help and that our country is resolute enough to provide that. It makes me disappointed that the rest of the world cannot see fit to vote 'in line' with the US. Lastly, I can and do talk about how ruthless hamas is, and how they will not in the foreseeable future (in my opinion) stop launching rockets. I do disagree that israel is just as bad. Far from it. Israel tries their hardest to do the right thing, and protect their people. Conversely its hamas that doesn't even try to 'play nice.' There is absolutely no deceiving myself about the genocide claims. Palestinians and Iran (again as the defacto head of arab state in the region) have stated publicly, repeatedly, that they wish nothing less than to wipe israel from the face of the earth. How this can be interpreted as anything but genocide is a mystery to me. I suspect that we have wildly different views on this that may never be reconciled, and appreciate your continued civil tone. TLDR: Are you still in this thread if you aren't reading what we are typing?
