Israel - Gaza - What should we do if anything.

[hellfire257 3]

The intricacies are irrelevant IMO in the grand scheme of things. The simple fact that Israel exists has caused yet another conflict. That is the root of the problem. This is why I am firmly anti-zionist. The creation of Israel was a mistake that is being paid for in blood - too much blood.

[mrcash2009 0]

As long as the "palestinians" are being taught to hate the Jews and Israel since the childhood, it's really hard to see any actual peace happening in that area. Israel is the only civilized country in the area, surrounded mainly by barbaric/religious dictatorships.

The Palestinians are having their own land taken from Zionist Jews claiming it as thier own based on their own doctrine. The rest come4s from years of tit for tat and divide and rule.

For those who are brainwashed by media and pallywood to think that Israel is the big devil: Israel's strikes are focused on military targets.

Isreal is based from the core on Zoinism and in turn links back to the papacy and Rome & heavily armed and funded to the nines, so it is in fact true. The other side fight back and have been pushed into fighting how ever they can due to not having some military like Israel are funded with. The rest is generation upon generations pushed further and further into hating each "side", so as much as you can say one side is as bad as the other with how they retaliate it doesn't answer & smokescreens the core points.

I think trying to slip in justification based on morals in warfare techniques is a bit worthless in the end. The only way this will end is the world and locals having a true picure of the manupilation that is going in through this and beyond.

Edited November 22, 2012 by mrcash2009

[froggyluv 2133]

. To learn more about the history of Israel and the region, I recommend you to watch the videos that I posted in the previous page.

Those videos (all of which Ive seen before) are so ridiculously simplified and biased you should be ashamed to post them as true history -pure propaganda. Notice how they completely try to delegitimize the "so-called Palestinian" and often show them all holding RPGs -no happy schoolkids or workers going about their day. The argument that there is no such thing as a Palestinian could easily apply to there is no such thing as Native Americans as they had no real structures and no real claim to any land. The argument that they only starting arriving about 200 years ago could as well be applied to the modern day American.

I recommend you start reading dual account testimony such as the excellent "Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land" -by David Shipler. It's a great and dare I say, closest account of non biased writing I've ever read on the subject and clearly illustrates how both sides dedicate enourmous resource to propaganda and history revision.

Edited November 22, 2012 by froggyluv

[walker 0]

Hi all

Ah the usual pointless Jibber-Jabber about who did what to who and who was where first and who's imaginary friend has a bigger claim.

In other words a crock of crap.

Deal in Reality people.

Simple solution recognise a Palestinian state in the UN same way Israel was recognised thus defining the parties. Then let the parties argue it out.

Until a Palestinian state is recognised by a simple UN majority the Jibber-Jaberers will continue to find excuses to murder civilian men women and children.

Kind Regards walker

[oxmox 73]

Your example doesn't fit in the middle east situation at all. The majority of the "Palestinians" who live in the area today are Arabs who at the end of 1800 and especially during the early 1900 emigrated to Palestine from the surrounding Arab countries.They were attracted to the area from the neighbouring countries by the organized Jewish emigration to Palestine that started in the 1880s. To learn more about the history of Israel and the region, I recommend you to watch the videos that I posted in the previous page.

Particularly this one:

Careful with these "private" videos and their historical view. As far I did read, all inhabitants of the british mandate were originally called "palestinians" independant of their religious believes. Allegedly, the origin of the name Palestine is derivated from the Phillistines.

The "Holy Land" or "Palestine" is actually a geographical area. An area which has an immense relevance for the monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All three religions are based on Abraham the common ancestor. The area was not only for 400 years under the Ottoman Empire, the Islamization did begin already around 700 AD and was a place of conflicts i.e. crusades. Since the "Holy Land" is such important for these three religions, people with mixed believes/religions were living in this territory. There were arab emigrations, but aswell jewish ones and guesses about the population numbers of the existing confession. But what is the point of this all to find a peacfull solution ? The Balfour Decleration was declared and the Arabs were not asked about it, this did lead to the problems we see nowadays.

The huge problems are not only based on land claims, a political movement for a jewish homeland which is historical understandable, but it is also based on religious believes. A dangerous mix for preprogrammed issues and conflicts.

Edited November 23, 2012 by oxmox

[mrcash2009 0]

Simple solution recognise a Palestinian state in the UN same way Israel was recognised thus defining the parties. Then let the parties argue it out.

Hmm, so its the UN's fault then? After all they acklowledge the heavily funded Isreal, but cant find it to do the same for "the other lot". So we run to the UN (world police) to acknowledge this, and this is UN who is subordanate to Rome, yes I see how that works. As if in that siutations critical mass right now the parties arguing it out will have that much control on the ground, and then if they did it would be the UN targeted, and then it gets wider.

I also have allot of Chin stroking in regards to Hamas and also who's assisting them from the other side, fishy times indeed, much infiltration this way comes.

[TheGreatBenji 1]

As if we could do anything about it.

So true!

[scrim 1]

Comparing the situation to Israel/Palestine. Israel/Jews have long history in the area (over 3000 years). During the time when majority of the Jews lived outside (100-1900), they were singing songs about going back to Jerusalem. When they finally started moving back to the area in the 1880s, the area was desolate and barren. Small settlements of Jews and Arabs lived there, but it was mainly empty. Thus, it is in no way comparable to a situation where Russia or any other country invades Finland, which is a sovereign country.

So the fact that Jews sang songs about a country their extremely distant ancestors had left over 1000 years earlier means that they are morally and legally allowed to kick out the Arabs who'd actually been living there for the past +1000 years just because they were singing about it when others lived there?

"Desolate and barren", that describes many countries very well, especially Finland. The infrastructure in ones country is in no way related to ones right to live there, now is it? If it is, then tell the Russians that they can invade Finland and go ahead with ethnic cleansing of Finns, because last time I checked, Finland was a very barren and desolate country outside the few major cities. And you wouldn't really be capable of stopping them either, considering that it'd be the modern Russian army, not the old Red army that couldn't take Finland the first time because it was paralyzed by the purges, or the second time because they were prioritizing Germany.

Also, if the state of ones country has anything to do with your right to live there, how can you blame the Arabs and celebrate the Jews? The Arabs weren't in charge of their country, the British were. Is it the Arabs' fault that the British didn't go on a frenzied building spree in Palestine? And if the Jews hadn't had the tremendous outside assistance that they had, their country wouldn't look much better than Tunisia or Egypt today.

Edited November 26, 2012 by scrim

[hellfire257 3]

Related and interesting article: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/112608Lendman.shtml

Thoughts?

[spooky lynx 73]

From the talk with my aunt and his husband (he's Arab) who live at West bank the main problem is the shortage of water and Israeli full control of it (and priority of water exploring is for Jewish settlements and towns). It's almost impossible to dig your own well on your own private territory if you are Arab.

[scrim 1]

You'd think that if the Israelis were indeed interested in peace, that they'd look to what the Americans achieved in Iraq. Iraq looked literally a thousand times worse during the few, relatively good days of 2004-2007, and the Americans turned that around completely in 2-3 years. Meanwhile, Israel has had the same problem with the Palestinians since day 1, and they are largely to blame for it (note, the Palestinians, not the Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc who rushed to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews the day Israel was created).

[ProfTournesol 956]

You'd think that if the Israelis were indeed interested in peace, that they'd look to what the Americans achieved in Iraq. Iraq looked literally a thousand times worse during the few, relatively good days of 2004-2007, and the Americans turned that around completely in 2-3 years. Meanwhile, Israel has had the same problem with the Palestinians since day 1, and they are largely to blame for it (note, the Palestinians, not the Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc who rushed to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews the day Israel was created).

I'm curious to know what the US have achieved in Irak, apart from chaos.

[mrcash2009 0]

You'd think that if the Israelis were indeed interested in peace, that they'd look to what the Americans achieved in Iraq.

Hmmm yes, they invaded a sovereign country half way across the planet and now its in a worse condition than before security wise. So, I guess your right. IN fact you could say the US military copied them as they did it all first.

Iraq looked literally a thousand times worse during the few, relatively good days of 2004-2007, and the Americans turned that around completely in 2-3 years.

Yes I agree its ship shape to how it once was before invasion, so a good model to base a short sharp solution to this situation :butbut:.

Meanwhile, Israel has had the same problem with the Palestinians since day 1,

Its true, I agree, the Palestinians from the outset had WMD's and needed to be invaded.

they are largely to blame for it (note, the Palestinians, not the Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc who rushed to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews the day Israel was created).

So something you could not control happens in your land and then gets taken, something you cannot control happens way back in your history, and now you as the current occupancy are to "blame"? Wow, nice, I head it all now, thanks. Do they deserve what they are getting I might ask? Two wrongs dont make a right but we are in the here and now.

Edited November 27, 2012 by mrcash2009

[scrim 1]

Uh, no offense really, but have you seen the news recently? The Americans did manage to take Iraq from "hell on Earth with at least 100 dead civilians a day" to what they have today, i.e. a complete society with flourishing democracy. It's the second ever democracy in the Middle East. The actual Iraqi government is in control of the country. The army and police are functioning better than they did during Saddam. Less Iraqis are dying now than before the invasion IIRC (remember what Saddam felt was important during the UN sanctions? Was it himself or the population?). The facts are that there indeed was tremendous chaos around 2004-2007, and that the surge actually worked. If you think Iraq is still like it was when you saw it on the news 7 years ago, I'm happy to say that you are very mistaken.

Iraq was all but a nice looking country before the invasion. Do you have any idea of the state of the country, or how many of its citizens who were starving/dying from simple deceases due to the embargos Saddam caused to the country? "Sovereign" sounds very good, but it's worth jack all when it's just a brutal dictatorship directed by the wishes of less than half a dozen people. Did most Iraqis welcome the overthrow of Saddam? Yes. Did Bush lie when he was talking about the WMDs? Most likely. He might actually have believed it, so he might not have been lying completely. He was very wrong though of course. Did most Iraqis get very pissed off when they discovered the Americans were staying, but without handling the situation properly, thus watching the country descend into chaos. Yes. Did the Americans manage to turn it around when the country was at the brink of a civil war? Yes.

Iraq is indeed in a worse situation security wise now than before the invasion. A democratic government that uses its security forces in accordance with international law and basic human rights will not be able to ensure security as well as a beast of a dictator who'd gas and torture his own people by the thousands for nothing. Add to that the fact that more Iraqis were dying under Saddam's rule than today, and we're pretty much left with "would you rather have a harsh, brutal dictatorship with massive amounts of dead innocents, or would you rather have a democracy with less dead innocents?"

And a final note. I wrote that Israel was mostely to blame for its bad relationship with the Palestinians, and that the Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc., were to blame for their bad relationship with Israel. Palestine is hardly the property of any of those countries, is it?

[froggyluv 2133]

Uh, no offense really, but have you seen the news recently? The Americans did manage to take Iraq from "hell on Earth with at least 100 dead civilians a day" to what they have today, i.e. a complete society with flourishing democracy.

Thats not what I see on the news. I see a hobbled nation with countless 'terrorist attacks' per month and either another strongman in the making or a fallen nation plagued by tribal warfare and Islamic miltants. It is not our (America) duty or right to invade and occupy another nation, killing thousands of theirs and ours, with the justification of "you will have a better life". The only threat we feel from the region are the Global Jihadists who ironically propagate by that very intervention of their region. Imagine another, stronger nation then the U.S coming to our shores and killing thousands of of us while occupying our very streets with guns - all in the promise that we'll have a better quality of life once they dispose of our leader and security force. Myself and everyone I know would most definitely become an "American Jihadist" and swear vengeance on the so-called good faith invasion.

Jihadists are born out of our very presence and interference in the region in which we have no business. They are like 3rd grade kids that just can't quit fighting but one has a big brother whos a collegiate wrestler with an M4. Eventually those other kids are going to look for ways to disamantle this overpowered ally who has no business in that schoolyard in the first place. America should never get involved in the business of forced democracy or nation building when they simply don't want either.

Edited November 29, 2012 by froggyluv
spelling

[vilas 477]

+1 to froggyluv

c'mon scrim

o you have any idea of the state of the country, or how many of its citizens who were starving/dying from simple deceases due to the embargos Saddam caused to the country?

if i don't like your president and i will kill because of him (president) your family (stupid example but very visual), than who is blame for that killing ? me or your president ?

looking at your point of view your president should get sentence if i will shot your family because i don't like your president ????

for me it is nonsense, seems for you it is okay ?

okay, so if i will steal your car because i don't like your dog or cat, will you shoot your dog or cat because your car was stolen ?

it is not Saddam who caused starvation, it was those states who put embargo because some big money interests of WMF or World Bank were not as they wanted

"would you rather have a harsh, brutal dictatorship with massive amounts of dead innocents, or would you rather have a democracy with less dead innocents?"

living in country in which west changed system i can say it looks different, i would paraphrase it:

"would you rather to have lack of democracy with safety on streets and employment and lack of ability to travel abroad or you want system in which criminals roaming and robbing you at your neighborhood with media controlled by few businessmen and lack of money for travel abroad and being unemployed " (as a victim of burglary in 2005, armed robbery in 2000 and person who was unemployed for nearly 1.5 years in 2002/2003 when unemployment in PL was over 20% (now 13%+2.2 milions emigration which is 5% of our nation) i am choosing first option and anyone can stick this "democracy" up to their... if state will guarantee me a job, flat, safe streets )

you know what "democracy" gave us ? elections, but as all politicians lie, so 50% simply boycote voting, cause there is noone to vote for, sometimes you vote against , so we have useless elections if 3-4 important parties are only interested in stuffing up their pockets with taxpayers' money, you also have democracy in which you can always choose between CocaCola and Pepsi, but you never can choose tea, vodka or water ,

because of wars in region half milion of people died there in both those 2 countries

even J Bush said he wants to change regime, not bring to them welfare and peace of mind

all those wars were made because group of very very very rich people want more money (interests of oil companies etc.)

to bring freedom of people in region of Palestine, Israel you would have to disarm both nations and live only small police forces with pistols to keep street safety (but it won't work because Islam spreads very well like Christianity was spreading in middle-ages)

Edited November 29, 2012 by vilas

[scrim 1]

Froggy: Where did I ever write that it was right to invade the country in the first place? Nowhere. I said that the term "sovereign" doesn't really pack that much of a punch in an invasion scenario if the country is ruled by a dictator, because personally I think democracy is something that is quite a lot more relevant.

What I can say for sure is that violence and terrorist attacks in Iraq have gone down along with the insurgency to very low numbers. Here's a sort of interactive chart that does a great job at illustrating the height of the insurgency and its fall with IEDs.

There is a huge difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of America that you write about. For starters, throughout history there's only been two recorded wars between democracies, so which of the countries isn't in this case? Is it the invader or the US? I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that if your country had been ruled by a brutal despot who'd willingly used WMDs on his own people, tortured, put his country through almost a decade of devestating war with a country of almost equal strength only to end up with a status quo and a shattered economy where there was once a thriving economy, had destroyed large parts of the country's eco system as punishment for uprisings, etc. that most Americans would welcome the invader who was there to take that despot to the gallows and bring even basic democracy.

Vilas: That first argument makes no sense. Were people killing others in Iraq just because they didn't like Saddam? No. People were killing thousands and thousands of Iraqis at Saddams command.

And yes, it is very much Saddam who caused the starvation. It was his regime that attracted them in the first place. Embargos like the one Iraq was subjected to are commonly things one can handle if one doesn't think that one's own rich, wealth and military might is more important than your people not starving. They would also be very easy to handle if you do something like, I don't know, resign? From where did he get the right to rule Iraq? Last time I checked there were a number of millions of Iraqis who'd be elegable to vote, so I think they could've made without him.

How can you defend giving away freedoms for security? Suppose Franklin was correct when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Just to round things up: If you still believe that Iraq is an anarchy, ruled by a dictator, plagued by hundreds of deaths to terrorist attacks per day, etc. then you have a rather uneducated view of the country.

[vilas 477]

that's how it looks

of course i am uneducated about Iraqi everyday life , but i have experiences of life 2 systems and comparison

democracy allows people to vote on parties which you can vote (2-3 politically correct parties which differ a little) , if 50% of population boycott voting (because of lack of party that cares about usual men interest cause 2-3 parties care only about businessmen) than in fact minority rules majority, what kind of democracy is when majority has to obey minority ? democracy is only in situation when majority forces it's ideas and minority must obey majority, not vice versa (example: 78% Poles supported capital punishment but because of EU we had it sustained, what kind of democracy we talk about if noone asked us in referendum for ACTA , for raising retire age to 67 while French people go retired at 60 ? noone asked us for VAT tax raise to 23% noone asked us for legalization of gun rights and all political parties only vote for raising up intel services and forbidding even bigger knives)

so i believe that in Iraq it looks similar, new democracy will mean "more rights for the rich and banks and international corporations tax free, less right for the middle and low class which pays taxes", before "democracy" we had guarantee of job and flat, no gangs on streets,

real democracy is in Switzerland, Finland, Sweden etc. when people are asked by referendums and gov. obeys result of referendums, in other countries it is just painted facade with markings but in real even so called "political correctness" blocks many ideas and majority must pay for minority spending (immigrants who make 8 kids, do not work but take child support money and drink for it) etc.

but it is offtopic to Gaza , sorry

in Gaza it won't work,

cause voting result "would you like slaughter of opposite site and take their possessions" would not change anything , just like bringing "freedom" to countries in which ruler "dictator" was keeping atheistic state and majority wants middle-age, this region is not ready for european way of life for some generations at least

[mrcash2009 0]

There is a huge difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of America that you write about.

Much the same as Iraq compared with Gaza, which lets face it is what this thread is actually about more to the point. BTW as a offtopic side note find out how Sadam was funded and who payed him visits in the 80's.

[nettrucker 142]

Yesterday I watched the documentary film "Tears of Gaza" . . . at first I wanted to post a link but I desisted. The Palestinians are being exterminated slowly but surely. What struck me really bad was the expressions in the faces of the young children. Traumatized and terrorized their looks in their eyes. without families without help. The images in the hospital after the bombing started and the first wounded were coming in, was gruesome.

There will never be peace between Palestine and Israel until all Palestinians have been wiped out. In any case do a research on you tube and watch the documentary. Be aware that there some really gruesome scenes. I must admit I felt very bad after having watched the film. IMO the situation is too much degenerated, there's too much hatred on both sides.

[scrim 1]

A last note about this, as I agree that it's off topic (which is why I mentioned it in passing as a comparison originally):

Vilas: I don't care the least how many Poles boycot elections. The fact that they have the option is only one of democracy's many virtues.

I know what a democracy looks like. Both from a general point of view, and from your point of view, as I live in Sweden.

Mrcash: I know that my views on this matter probably belong to a minority, and that I would easily be mixed up with the American right wingers who'd passionately deny that Saddam's rule was in any way eased by the US. However, my views on the Iraq matter are roughly something along the lines of "yep, the bastard was America's bestest friend in the first half. Yep, they supplied both sides with weapons when they were at war. Yep, the Gulf War of '91 was the right thing to do. Nope, it was wrong to sit and watch as the Iraqis rose against Saddam after you urged them to do so. Saddam is responsible for the suffering caused by the embargos, as the embargos were caused by his rule and more importantly, his way of ruling as most dictators in the world actually manage to not be so cruel that they are faced with harsh embargos. It was sort of the right thing to invade Iraq in '03, since the country that did most had done much to ensure that Saddam could remain in power through the years, but it was still motivated mostly by out right lies. It was definitely wrong to rush it, and to not have any sort of plan as what to do next, which resulted in the massive violence after the invasion. Yep, it was right to stay and initiate the Surge. In fact, the Surge is the most black and white thing there is about Iraq."

[seba1976 98]

I was watching a documentary some years ago, with some very interesting interviews. There was, for example, one made to Jews living in Iran, and they even have participation in regional parlaments (or whatever they call it there), which was shocking to see, at least for me. Then they moved on to interview arab palestinians which lived behind Israel's infamous walls, and it was these people the ones who most impressed me. Most of the interviewed said, that most of the people they knew, did not care about a palestinian state, they just wanted to leave in peace and for the violence to stop. I know it sound's crazy but maybe some of you here can confirm o deny that there are many arabs in palestine that do not care about independence from Israel, despite what the rest of the world thinks. I repeat, it sounded crazy then and it sounds crazy now, but the documentary was very well done and they actually went there and talk to ordinary people, and the journalist seemed very hardcore :).

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

@scrim: Embargos are there to force other countries to do something they don't want to do, or to make the people revolt against their goverment. In any case, what gives you the right to act on those matters? If you want to act to stop the a dictator from oppressing the people, at least have the balls to go there and take the dictator out, but the embargo will make the people suffer first. How is that right? Embargos first and then invasion is even worst, it's even more devastating for the people.

[nettrucker 142]

I was watching a documentary some years ago, with some very interesting interviews. There was, for example, one made to Jews living in Iran, and they even have participation in regional parlaments (or whatever they call it there), which was shocking to see, at least for me. Then they moved on to interview arab palestinians which lived behind Israel's infamous walls, and it was these people the ones who most impressed me. Most of the interviewed said, that most of the people they knew, did not care about a palestinian state, they just wanted to leave in peace and for the violence to stop. I know it sound's crazy but maybe some of you here can confirm o deny that there are many arabs in palestine that do not care about independence from Israel, despite what the rest of the world thinks. I repeat, it sounded crazy then and it sounds crazy now, but the documentary was very well done and they actually went there and talk to ordinary people, and the journalist seemed very hardcore :).

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

@scrim: Embargos are there to force other countries to do something they don't want to do, or to make the people revolt against their goverment. In any case, what gives you the right to act on those matters? If you want to act to stop the a dictator from oppressing the people, at least have the balls to go there and take the dictator out, but the embargo will make the people suffer first. How is that right? Embargos first and then invasion is even worst, it's even more devastating for the people.

Well embargo's are used to weaken the economies and therefore raise artificially shortage of whatever kind. They starve the people in order to obtain whatever they want to obtain. Today's wars are defined as humanitarian wars. How can a war ever be considered humanitarian is beyond my understanding. The goal of the Israeli leadership is to drive out the Palestinians. They will inflict suffering to the people until they have no other choice than to react and leave their land in the end. WTF are International laws made for, if powerful people will always get away with war crimes for which Germans have been convicted and sentenced to death during the Nürnberg trials.

As long as we can't outlaw war there will always be one. I mean who does actually want war? Only people who are profiteering from it . . . history should teach us actually something, but it does not. Things are very complicated in the middle East you can't rely on mainstream media to understand what's actually going on. The biggest media networks are in control of very few people. Our politicians are not representing us, not that they ever had . . . they're running their own agenda as usual. Embargo's for e.g are just a different kind of weapon in a different kind of war. Read "Confessions of an Economic hitman" by John Perkins than you might get a slight idea what powerful corporations can do to ruin completely the economy of a country with the end result of being able to exploit their resources for cheap. That has been done in South America and in middle East for Decades. And if we can't kill you by applying embargo's . . . toppling your governments . . . then we'll kick your ass with our military.

Palestine will cease to exist because nobody actually cares about what happens over there. It is only a matter of time just watch a world map of the sixties and watch the current one then you understand my statement. And yeah I believe that you are right that Palestinians wish to live in peace and with dignity and that peace is a priority concern to them more than anything else. Gaza is the biggest open prison in the world. . . but how can you defend yourself against such an aggression. The minute you try to defend your life you are labelled as a terrorist.

What would I do if someone would bulldozer down my house or a lot worse, bomb the shit out of me, killing my family. Wouldn't I pick up the fight? What reason would be left for me to live if all my loved ones would get killed and my home destroyed.

Israel is annexing Palestine and everyone who tries to stay and resist will get killed.

[froggyluv 2133]

Froggy: Where did I ever write that it was right to invade the country in the first place? Nowhere. I said that the term "sovereign" doesn't really pack that much of a punch in an invasion scenario if the country is ruled by a dictator, because personally I think democracy is something that is quite a lot more relevant.

So we back a dictator then have the right to invade and occupy a country because they are not our version of a Democracy in the name of "humanitarianism"? Hamas was elected democratically as was the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood but Fatah was not - do we back these regimes but not the latter? It is foolishness to believe these are humanitarian motives -these are without question, who will better serve our and Israel's interests. The point of the 'American invaded' hypothetical still stands -it's not up to another nation to dictate how we choose our leaders or live our lives.

What I can say for sure is that violence and terrorist attacks in Iraq have gone down along with the insurgency to very low numbers. Here's a sort of interactive chart that does a great job at illustrating the height of the insurgency and its fall with IED

So whats your point? We start a war and insurgency rises leading to more IED attacks? There wouldn't have been any "surge" in IED attacks had we'd not invaded their land. Chicken and the egg. Heres an interesting read on present day security and killings in Iraq http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-is-security-like-today-in-iraq.html

But enough on Iraq -my overall point is that I am tired of America's intervention in the Middle East and that extends to Israel as well. We are an artificial construct in the region so events can never play out naturally. I agree with nettrucker's above synopisis and fear there is little hope of Palestinians ever getting a fair deal as long as the US constantly takes Israels side in the U.N and support them militarily -anti Americanism and Jihadism will grow and that is my main concern.

Edited November 29, 2012 by froggyluv

[scrim 1]

Nettrucker: I was refering to the embargos placed against Iraq in the '90s, as opposed to the blockades imposed on the Palestinians by Israel which in my mind are something completely different than those imposed against Iraq.

Froggy: Have I ever written that you can do that? Nope. The point you're making about America contains one key ingredience that Iraq was lacking previous to the invasion; it wasn't the Iraqis who chosed their leader, or how they lead their lives. The Surge doesn't refer to IEDs, you'd known that if you took some time to read about Iraq.

Other than that, I agree with you.