How far might the Israeli-Palestidiot thing actually go?

[davebg 0]

As for Arafat--I learned that he understood global politics and diplomacy as well as anyone, at times: talk nice to the newsmakers, throw red meat to your friends.

A trick that the world keeps falling for and one that Hamas has learned to exploit.

 

The UN did nothing? So that economic embargo didn't exist?

That would be that whole Oil for Food thang that nobody of consequence at the UN has really taken responsibility for, right?

[Strike 3,981]

Is your argument that there was no embargo? Otherwise, none of the above makes any sense.

 

Are you saying the embargo was enforced?

[davebg 0]

Withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza is the appropriate move.

Please point out another country that was attacked, defeated their attackers and then gave back the land that they captured to the very same people who are still calling for their destruction.

[TerrySilver 0]

hopefully they both destroy themselves.

 

and i am in no way a sympathizer for the palestinians, but i dont think the recent isrealis bombing all over Gaza, killing a ton of innocent people, knocking out the only power plant the palestinians use, amongst other things, over ONE (yes one) isreali hostage isn't exactly fair either. talk about killing a fly with a AK-47. alot of innocent palestinians are dying over there for the terrible acts of a few palestinian militants

 

in my book, they're both focking equally crazy over there

[torridjoe 0]

Are you saying the embargo was enforced?

 

Yes, I am. Trade with Iraq was severely curtailed during the decade after the first war, bringing incredible economic hardships on its people.

Was it universally, 100% enforced? Obviously not.

 

Please point out another country that was attacked, defeated their attackers and then gave back the land that they captured to the very same people who are still calling for their destruction.

 

The US, in Afghanistan?

[Strike 3,981]

Yes, I am. Trade with Iraq was severely curtailed during the decade after the first war, bringing incredible economic hardships on its people.

Was it universally, 100% enforced? Obviously not.

 

Define severely in this case. What %? With link please.

[torridjoe 0]

Define severely in this case. What %? With link please.

 

To what end? Are you disputing Powell and Rice that Saddam was contained by the embargo?

[davebg 0]

The US, in Afghanistan?

Really? I didn't know that we had "captured" all of Afghanistan. Or that we had turned it over to a government that is currently calling or our destruction.

 

Nice try.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Here's my prediction:

 

1. The Palestinians will kill the soldier b/c of the acts of the Israeli's.

2. The Israeli's will retaliate by bombing the crap out of Gaza.

3. The Palestinians will retaliate by......

4. The Israeli's will retaliate by......

 

Same story, different day.

 

Some thoughts...

1. Torrid and I dramatically disagree. Israel has every right to hold all of their acquired land. I thought it was amazing that the moderates in Israel re-organized a space for their muslim counterparts. It'd be like us giving land in Alaska to North Korea. But land won in war and to protect national security is a right of hegemony.

2. The Palestinians are not some displaced country. Palestine is a region, all the Jewish folks are palestinians too. They just didn't live in a Jewish state before.

3. Syria is doing all it plans on doing, stirring the pot for the world to see. No chance are they going to directly engage Israel. They'd be dead in 2 days. and who's gonna help em this time? Eygpt-why would they? Iraq? (here's one positive outcome of the fockng war) Iran? They know their butter is screwing with the US.

 

This will go away in a week with another news cycle.

[Strike 3,981]

To what end? Are you disputing Powell and Rice that Saddam was contained by the embargo?

 

What do you mean by contained? Our presence in the gulf certainly prevented him from invading anyone else. Economically? I have no idea. I know that many of his palaces were built during the embargo, so where'd that money come from? We know there was a lot of underhanded violations of the embargo from many countries that we had no idea about during the embargo. So, do you have any documentation on how effective the embargo actually was or don't you? It's a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?

[torridjoe 0]

Really? I didn't know that we had "captured" all of Afghanistan. Or that we had turned it over to a government that is currently calling or our destruction.

 

Nice try.

 

You didn't know that? It was in the news, once or twice. We invaded the country, took it over, and then handed it back to the people who called for our destruction in the first place. Read a paper.

 

Here's my prediction:

 

1. The Palestinians will kill the soldier b/c of the acts of the Israeli's.

2. The Israeli's will retaliate by bombing the crap out of Gaza.

3. The Palestinians will retaliate by......

4. The Israeli's will retaliate by......

 

Same story, different day.

 

Some thoughts...

1. Torrid and I dramatically disagree. Israel has every right to hold all of their acquired land. I thought it was amazing that the moderates in Israel re-organized a space for their muslim counterparts. It'd be like us giving land in Alaska to North Korea. But land won in war and to protect national security is a right of hegemony.

2. The Palestinians are not some displaced country. Palestine is a region, all the Jewish folks are palestinians too. They just didn't live in a Jewish state before.

3. Syria is doing all it plans on doing, stirring the pot for the world to see. No chance are they going to directly engage Israel. They'd be dead in 2 days. and who's gonna help em this time? Eygpt-why would they? Iraq? (here's one positive outcome of the fockng war) Iran? They know their butter is screwing with the US.

 

This will go away in a week with another news cycle.

 

 

When did the US kick the North Koreans out of Alaska?

 

What do you mean by contained? Our presence in the gulf certainly prevented him from invading anyone else. Economically? I have no idea. I know that many of his palaces were built during the embargo, so where'd that money come from? We know there was a lot of underhanded violations of the embargo from many countries that we had no idea about during the embargo. So, do you have any documentation on how effective the embargo actually was or don't you? It's a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?

 

Because it's meaningless to the discussion, unless you are disputing the conclusion reached by the US and UN before 9/11 that Iraq was contained. Are you?

[Strike 3,981]

You didn't know that? It was in the news, once or twice. We invaded the country, took it over, and then handed it back to the people who called for our destruction in the first place. Read a paper.

When did the US kick the North Koreans out of Alaska?

Because it's meaningless to the discussion, unless you are disputing the conclusion reached by the US and UN before 9/11 that Iraq was contained. Are you?

 

I asked you a specific question. What do you mean by contained? And are you disputing that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions?

[torridjoe 0]

I asked you a specific question. What do you mean by contained? And are you disputing that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions?

 

I know you asked a specific question. It was an irrelevant one.

 

And the answer to the second question is no.

[Strike 3,981]

I know you asked a specific question. It was an irrelevant one.

 

And the answer to the second question is no.

 

LOL. The meaning of a word is irrelevant. Well, I can't answer the question if you can't define the word as it's being used in this case. And then you concede that Saddam was in violation of countless UN resolutions. Maybe if the UN had taken some type of punitive action, any type of action at all, to punish Saddam for not adhering to their resolutions we might not be in this mess. I mean, for fock's sake it was going on for 10 years and the Iraqi people were suffering as a result. If the UN hadn't been such a worthless fock this issue could have been dealt with a lot better than it ultimately was. But eventually it was going to get dealt with, just like some of these other issues coming up now (Iran, N. Korea, etc..). Maybe the UN should get off it's corrupt a$$ and deal with those issues before they end up in a clusterfock like Iraq. Don't you think that might be a good idea?

[torridjoe 0]

LOL. The meaning of a word is irrelevant. Well, I can't answer the question if you can't define the word as it's being used in this case. And then you concede that Saddam was in violation of countless UN resolutions. Maybe if the UN had taken some type of punitive action, any type of action at all, to punish Saddam for not adhering to their resolutions we might not be in this mess.

 

Like an embargo that resulted in the US considering Saddam contained?

Or an inspections regime that showed Iraq had no WMD stockpiles or programs?

 

If you'd like to know what was meant by contained, ask Condi or Colin.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Kim Jong ILL Supercuts should launch his TAE-KWON-DO-2 missaisles and hit the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jericho, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula.

 

[torridjoe 0]

Kim Jong ILL Supercuts should launch his TAE-KWON-DO-2 missaisles

 

Did Kim just cut a record with Snoop?

Yeah, boyeeee, fire dem missaizles right up into Schwarzenegger's hizzy!

And you don't have to make up a funny name for them, when the real name is Taepo-Dong!

[Korben Dallas 0]

When did the US kick the North Koreans out of Alaska?

 

When did the Palestinian Muslims ever own or have a "right" to the West bank or Gaza Strip? Now if we were talking Eygpt or Syria, then you'd have a point. Palestinians are Jewish AND Muslim. They've both lived their for hundreds of years. Only since the 2nd infada did the Muslims claim it was "occupied by infidels", and make Palestinian = muslims.

 

I have very little remorse for the Palestinians, they elected the terrorists that caused them so much trouble the last 30 years instead of a fresh start. They basically said, "Kick my ass".

[wiffleball 4,647]

Same story, different day.

 

Some thoughts...

1. Torrid and I dramatically disagree. Israel has every right to hold all of their acquired land. I thought it was amazing that the moderates in Israel re-organized a space for their muslim counterparts. It'd be like us giving land in Alaska to North Korea. But land won in war and to protect national security is a right of hegemony.

 

I understand your thoughts on the 'hegemony' part, but I don't think your analogy is apt. I think a closer one would be more like the US setting aside land for the native americans. NoKo never occupied nor had any legitimate (or otherwise) claim to Alaska. We, like the Israelis - came in, conquered and took it.

[Snuff 10]

When did the Palestinian Muslims ever own or have a "right" to the West bank or Gaza Strip? Now if we were talking Eygpt or Syria, then you'd have a point. Palestinians are Jewish AND Muslim. They've both lived their for hundreds of years. Only since the 2nd infada did the Muslims claim it was "occupied by infidels", and make Palestinian = muslims.

 

I have very little remorse for the Palestinians, they elected the terrorists that caused them so much trouble the last 30 years instead of a fresh start. They basically said, "Kick my ass".

 

[Korben Dallas 0]

I understand your thoughts on the 'hegemony' part, but I don't think your analogy is apt. I think a closer one would be more like the US setting aside land for the native americans. NoKo never occupied nor had any legitimate (or otherwise) claim to Alaska. We, like the Israelis - came in, conquered and took it.

 

 

My argument is that the Palestinians don't either. Better example might be, Texans are given statehood by the US, suddenly Dallas people start committing suicide attacks in San Antonio and Houston and demand to be given Galveston to run themselves. The Gaza and West bank were not these peoples original lands in any sense of political theory. They are Syria's and Eygpts. They had no government, they had no organized gathering, they were just living there peacefully with the Jewish until WW2 and the UN declaration. and they'd probably still be doing OK if the rest of the muslim world hadn't told them they were being oppressed and that the land that Eygpt lost should be "theirs".

 

The whole thing is focked up.

[torridjoe 0]

Palestinians are Jewish AND Muslim.

 

I have very little remorse for the Palestinians, they elected the terrorists that caused them so much trouble the last 30 years instead of a fresh start. They basically said, "Kick my ass".

 

So are Israelis.

 

I have very little remorse for the Palestinians, they elected the terrorists that caused them so much trouble the last 30 years instead of a fresh start. They basically said, "Kick my ass".

 

It was the terrorists that caused them the trouble? Which terrorist group took over their land, and commenced a brutal occupation of it?

 

My argument is that the Palestinians don't either. Better example might be, Texans are given statehood by the US, suddenly Dallas people start committing suicide attacks in San Antonio and Houston and demand to be given Galveston to run themselves. The Gaza and West bank were not these peoples original lands in any sense of political theory. They are Syria's and Eygpts. They had no government, they had no organized gathering, they were just living there peacefully with the Jewish until WW2 and the UN declaration. and they'd probably still be doing OK if the rest of the muslim world hadn't told them they were being oppressed and that the land that Eygpt lost should be "theirs".

 

The whole thing is focked up.

 

living there peacefully with the Jewish until the declaration? You must not know about the terrorist activities carried out by JEWS in that period, trying to force the issue and seize whatever they could, outside of a formal declaration.

 

If the people from Texas were kicked out to Oklahoma when statehood was declared, you might have something to your analogy.

[Strike 3,981]

Like an embargo that resulted in the US considering Saddam contained?

Or an inspections regime that showed Iraq had no WMD stockpiles or programs?

 

If you'd like to know what was meant by contained, ask Condi or Colin.

 

Who gives a rats ass whether he was "contained". The situation wasn't resolved nor was it on it's way to being resolved any time soon. Eventually the situation would have had to be dealt with. Had we not invaded noone knows what the outcome would have been. It could have been similar but at a later time or it could have been that at some point the UN would just lift the sanctions for whatever reason they decided. But there's no doubt that the UN failed in it's duty to resolve the issues there, just as they're ignoring their responsibility in Iran, N. Korea, Israel, etc.....You can keep apologizing for them all you want. You seem to come from the same mold as the UN given that you admit that you wouldn't even defend your family if someone showed up at your doorstep and attacked.

[torridjoe 0]

Who gives a rats ass whether he was "contained". The situation wasn't resolved nor was it on it's way to being resolved any time soon. Eventually the situation would have had to be dealt with. Had we not invaded noone knows what the outcome would have been. It could have been similar but at a later time or it could have been that at some point the UN would just lift the sanctions for whatever reason they decided. But there's no doubt that the UN failed in it's duty to resolve the issues there, just as they're ignoring their responsibility in Iran, N. Korea, Israel, etc.....You can keep apologizing for them all you want. You seem to come from the same mold as the UN given that you admit that you wouldn't even defend your family if someone showed up at your doorstep and attacked.

 

What situation are you talking about? The one where Saddam was contained and had no weapons to threaten anyone with--which the UN told us, correctly, BEFORE the war? What's to deal with?

 

The UN was doing its duty until it was superceded by the US, who focked things up completely. There's no getting around that, sorry.

 

You also totally misconstrue what I said about being attacked. I never said I wouldn't defend my family if "someone" showed up at my door. I said I wouldn't join a war to defend the US from invasion.

[Strike 3,981]

What situation are you talking about? The one where Saddam was contained and had no weapons to threaten anyone with--which the UN told us, correctly, BEFORE the war? What's to deal with?

 

The UN was doing its duty until it was superceded by the US, who focked things up completely. There's no getting around that, sorry.

 

You also totally misconstrue what I said about being attacked. I never said I wouldn't defend my family if "someone" showed up at my door. I said I wouldn't join a war to defend the US from invasion.

 

Yes, if passing new resolutions every time Saddam ignored the last one qualifies as "doing their job" then the UN was doing a heck of a job. Just like Brownie!!!

 

As far as misconstruing anything, don't agree to statements such as

 

In a thread a while back, torridjoe stated that he would not pick up arms to defend his home or family if invading armies were at his doorstep. Now THAT is a pacifist.

 

being accurate if you don't want them misconstrued. There's nothing in that statement about joining a war. it's simply a statement about picking up arms to defend your family, and you agreed that you wouldn't do it.

[torridjoe 0]

Yes, if passing new resolutions every time Saddam ignored the last one qualifies as "doing their job" then the UN was doing a heck of a job. Just like Brownie!!!

 

As far as misconstruing anything, don't agree to statements such as

 

In a thread a while back, torridjoe stated that he would not pick up arms to defend his home or family if invading armies were at his doorstep. Now THAT is a pacifist.

 

being accurate if you don't want them misconstrued. There's nothing in that statement about joining a war. it's simply a statement about picking up arms to defend your family, and you agreed that you wouldn't do it.

 

As is abundantly clear, the UN had the accurate read on things.

 

As for the statement, I didn't make it, someone else did. I agreed with it because it referred to a foreign invasion, which is the context in which what I originally stated. As usual, maybe you should stick to your own moronic thoughts, and quit deciding and describing what OTHER people are saying, for them.

[Strike 3,981]

As is abundantly clear, the UN had the accurate read on things.

 

LOL. The UN had an accurate read on things. They were clueless and actionless, like they always are. They just look a little better than usual because it turns out Saddam didn't have WMD. And again, even given that, what were we supposed to do, sit in the Gulf for 100 years babysitting Saddam? Damn you're pathetic.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

On 7/5/2006 at 10:12 AM, RLLD said:

 

Well, since this is the new dynamic can the age-old model of incursion really work? How can this possibly end without someone like Syria or Egypt stepping in and escalating this.

 

We know that Hamas will NEVER back down, we know that Israel will keep coming after them. Perhaps the US has to step in to stop a regional showdown at some point, pressure Israel to call it off?

Hmmm

[Fireballer 2,385]

JFC torrid was insufferable. 

[SUXBNME 1,340]

27 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

JFC torrid was insufferable. 

Strike kinda pwned him in this thread