The Middle East part 2

[Nemesis6 0]

If Israel uses "Palestine" as a place for storing Arabs, it's doing a horrible job. You know, the whole 1/5 of Israel's population being Arabs and all.

[Bernadotte 0]

If Israel uses "Palestine" as a place for storing Arabs, it's doing a horrible job. You know, the whole 1/5 of Israel's population being Arabs and all.

Not bad considering it used to be 4/5.

[Garcia 0]

whats funny is your lack of recogniton for the state of palastine,every time you refer to israels actions.

there is a massive difference between a person being arrested on the streets of london or in a house in london and the crossing of a state border kidnapping a member of government/citizen of another state .

 its obvious to me reading your statements that you are educated in the style of revisionism and thus ,if the state of palestine does not exist in your mind ,then any actions taken in that state be it murder or kidnapping have no repurcusions in your minds eye.

Palestine is not a state and it's not a country either.

But Palestine is neither a part of Israel, therefor Israel got no right to go into Palestine to "arrest" anyone, just like UK have no right to send a SAS team into Washington to "arrest" a person suspected of terrorism.

[Nemesis6 0]

But Palestine is neither a part of Israel, therefor Israel got no right to go into Palestine to "arrest" anyone, just like UK have no right to send a SAS team into Washington to "arrest" a person suspected of terrorism.

Israel has every right to go in there and arrest people. And Washington DC is the capital of the United States of America, a constitution-based federal republic. Palestine is nothing but a region. Israel going into the Palestinian territories is in no way comparable to the SAS going into Washington.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

The only reason why Palestine isn't a state already is because the U.S. supports Israel too much in spite of saying that the palestinians should have their own state and the israelis are completely against the palestinians having a state they can call their own. Why that is so I cannot understand.

[mp_phonix 0]

Because how exactly do you expect us to want the phalastinians to have a state, when their government is composed of mostly Terrorists [HAMAS], they have a misfanctional government & authorities [police etc.], which btw some of those policemen have two jobs, from 9am to 5pm - policmen, from 5pm to 9am - terrorist/militant/freedom fighter, whetever you call them. I prefer calling them terrorist.

[Bernadotte 0]

From an Israeli site about Prime Minister Olmert's opinions of the war:

Quote[/b] ]His poll results are abysmal, protestors are practically beating down the door to his office but, despite all that, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke proudly in a Sunday morning cabinet meeting of the accomplishments of the Lebanon war. According to him, prior to the war, its outcomes would have been considered a "fantasy".

"If someone would have told me a month and a half ago that there would be a multinational force and Lebanese army presence in the south, that UN Security Council resolution 1559 would begin to be implemented, that the UN Secretary-General would says that the multinational force could disarm Hizbullah, that there would be an arms embargo in Lebanon, observation of crossings, and all this while the IDF sat in Lebanon without being dragged into combat, despite a continued aerial and naval blockade - I would have said he was dreaming and that he shouldn't try to set unrealistic objectives."

And now some of the comments that followed the article:

Quote[/b] ]

Please Resign...It's the right thing to do  (End)

Dan    (08.27.06)

DIVERSIONARY TALK  

DACON9    (08.27.06)

Sounds very, very sick  

Eric  ,  Chicago   (08.27.06)

The three stooges MUST go  (End)

Arie  ,  Afula   (08.27.06)

Olmert is in such a deep sleep, you could call it a coma  

Len  ,  USA   (08.27.06)

I could only have dreamed of such stupidity  

Larry  ,  Eastbourne, UK   (08.27.06)

just started admitting...  

yoel    (08.27.06)

Man... what a blind, arrogant, jerk. Olmert, resign.  (End)

Jeremiah  ,  Israel, Jewish Land   (08.27.06)

Olmert resign (Your Son is a Deserter)  (End)

arie    (08.27.06)

Olmerts' new spin  

General Armchair  ,  Melbourne Australia   (08.27.06)

OLMERT'S LAST WISHES  

MAHMOOD  ,  LONDON-UK   (08.27.06)

Self Praise is NO Praise  (End)

John  ,  NZ   (08.27.06)

Sorry but we're not THAT stupid.  

Sharon  ,  Teaneck USA   (08.27.06)

Olmert must resign; Kadima is a failure  

Richard  ,  USA   (08.27.06)

Is Olmert reading the newspapers?  

Bernard Ross  ,  St. Anns Bay Jamaica   (08.27.06)

OLMERT RESIGN!  (End)

  (08.27.06)

Olmert thinks Israelis are just plain dumb, dumb, dumb.  

Moshe  ,  Jerusalem   (08.27.06)

Olmert & Peretz: Nasrallah's best allies  (End)

Avi  ,  Afula   (08.27.06)

What Planet Is This Man From???  

David  ,  Marietta USA   (08.27.06)

Pluto  

Kate  ,  Jerusalem   (08.27.06)

Olmert has support of Arabs, Fatah  

Andy  ,  Frisco   (08.27.06)

he's living in a fantasy world!!  

m  ,  usa   (08.27.06)

He won't resign.  

LEE  ,  USA   (08.27.06)

Give your head a shake...  

Kate  ,  Jerusalem   (08.27.06)

Can one be SOOOOOOOOOOOOO CRAZY, Who elected him & his gang  (End)

jb  ,  nj   (08.27.06)

Subcontracting Israel's security to Annan is a success???

JW  ,  ny   (08.27.06)

Did he stop taking his meds again?  

jason white  ,  afula,israel   (08.27.06)

Fantasy?  

Duke  ,  Chicago, USA   (08.28.06)

Olhmert's 'Dream Come True'  

gregdn  ,  Los Angeles USA   (08.28.06)

Ohlmert's my hero  

Captain America  ,  Seattle, USA   (08.28.06)

[Garcia 0]

Israel has every right to go in there and arrest people.

No they have no right to go in there and "arrest" people.

Quote[/b] ]I prefer calling them terrorist.

Not really a shocker that one You obviously prefer calling everyone who oppose Israel with violent acts for terrorists, wether or not they are actually defending against an Israeli invasion...

[mp_phonix 0]

Hmm . .Hizballah was defending against Israeli invasion 2 ? yeah, right, they attack as first and then they are the "poor freedom fighters" . .

[Garcia 0]

Hmm . .Hizballah was defending against Israeli invasion 2 ? yeah, right, they attack as first and then they are the "poor freedom fighters" . .

Could you please quote the part where I said that Hizbollah defended against an invasion? You'll find that I never mentioned that.

[mp_phonix 0]

yeah well you probably mean to . .and if not, how excatly you inavade a region that you are allready occupaing ?  

[Bernadotte 0]

Israel has every right to go in there and arrest people.

If that's true AND Israel is a democracy then every resident of those territories should have the right to vote in Israeli elections. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't even allow Palestinian residents of fully-annexed East Jerusalem to vote in its elections.

So go ahead and pretend Israel has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories, but then please stop pretending Israel is a democracy. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

[Garcia 0]

yeah well you probably mean to . .and if not, how excatly you inavade a region that you are allready occupaing ?  

No I never meant that Hizbollah only defended against a invasion. I was refering to situations like when you started shouting terrorist at civilians fireing at Israeli choppers, saying that they had to be terrorists since they fired, obviously not realizing that civilians in a country that is being invaded have every right to defend themself against the invading force. Also, you got situations where Israeli soldiers have been killed in illegally occupied areas, where you refer to the ones killing the Israeli soldier as terrorists, when they were fighting a illegal occupation. You call every act of violence against Israeli citizens terrorism.

Following your logic, Israelis who kill a suicide bomber are terrorists because the suicide bomber is "fighting" the country that is illgally occupying his homeland.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

I don't know much about that law in the UK, but from what I could understand is that you can hold somebody in costady for 90 days for being a suspected terrorist.

that's funny, because some people calling us "kidnhappers" if we arrest people that they are terrorist.

that failed to pass in parliment.  Its still 17 days (i beleive) after which the police can apply for a further 7 days.

[billybob2002 0]

A bit of revisionist history there, I think. As FDR didn't get the US into the war against either the Nazis or Japan at any time, he couldn't have got it in any earlier. The US was forced into the war.

I know but I was saying that FDR was anti-Nazi and he (therefore, the United States) would not have sided with the Nazis to fight the Soviets (I was rebutting what Buzzard said). In addition, he would have probably gotten the United States into the war to fight the Axis before Pearl Harbor happened if he had the support, governmental and public, and the military strength.

Why am I still on this subject....

[Nemesis6 0]

Ok, Garcia, so you see arresting a terrorist as a violation of "Palestine"'s sovereignty. Explain why.

Another question -

Quote[/b] ]I prefer calling them terrorist.

Who said that?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

A bit of revisionist history there, I think. As FDR didn't get the US into the war against either the Nazis or Japan at any time, he couldn't have got it in any earlier. The US was forced into the war.

I know but I was saying that FDR was anti-Nazi and he (therefore, the United States) would not have sided with the Nazis to fight the Soviets (I was rebutting what Buzzard said). In addition, he would have probably gotten the United States into the war to fight the Axis before Pearl Harbor happened if he had the support, governmental and public, and the military strength.

Why am I still on this subject....

the USA had a strong policy of isolationaism until pearl harbor.  Without it, they wouldnt have got into the war.  They were making a tidy profit from countries fighting the war (Britian, China etc.), and it wasnt in there best interests to get involved.  Also you have to ask yourself who did america hate more, Nazis or communists?  and if you arnt suckered by hollywood, then communists would have won every time in the 30's and 40's.   If things turned out differently , i bet it would be much more likely the US to side with germany against russia than the other way round. (had germany not invaded france)

[EiZei 0]

whats funny is your lack of recogniton for the state of palastine,every time you refer to israels actions.

there is a massive difference between a person being arrested on the streets of london or in a house in london and the crossing of a state border kidnapping a member of government/citizen of another state .

 its obvious to me reading your statements that you are educated in the style of revisionism and thus ,if the state of palestine does not exist in your mind ,then any actions taken in that state be it murder or kidnapping have no repurcusions in your minds eye.

Palestine is not a state and it's not a country either.

A group of militants asserting that their actions are justified because in their minds their opponent's country does not exist or doesnt deserve to exist.. why does that sound familiar?

[Garcia 0]

Ok, Garcia, so you see arresting a terrorist as a violation of "Palestine"'s sovereignty. Explain why.

Lets put it like this. If a ship full of suspected terrorists are in a boat in international water, Israel do not have the right to arrest them, because they are not inside Israeli borders. If Israel have the right to arrest people who is not within their country, then any country have the right to do what the fuck they like in international water too. Also, countires/organizations that do not recognize Israel would have a valid reason (to them it would be valid) to do whatever they like inside Israeli borders. Just because Israel feels Palestine is an area they can arrest people if they like doesn't make it right, and if it does, Israel do not have the right to react to violent act from organization/countries that don't recognize Israel...

Quote[/b] ]Who said that?

mp_phonix said that.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

whats funny is your lack of recogniton for the state of palastine,every time you refer to israels actions.

there is a massive difference between a person being arrested on the streets of london or in a house in london and the crossing of a state border kidnapping a member of government/citizen of another state .

 its obvious to me reading your statements that you are educated in the style of revisionism and thus ,if the state of palestine does not exist in your mind ,then any actions taken in that state be it murder or kidnapping have no repurcusions in your minds eye.

Palestine is not a state and it's not a country either.

A group of militants asserting that their actions are justified because in their minds their opponent's country does not exist or doesnt deserve to exist.. why does that sound familiar?

it sounds familiar becuase both the israeli and palastinians think of it to each other. Its not one way which people are trying to suggest.

[SPQR 0]

Soon, a first 900 men-bataillon, belonging to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, will deploy in Lebanon including one squadron of Leclerc tanks, two mecanized infantry companies (AMX-10P), one 155mm AuF1 armoured self-propelled artillery group, one short range Air Defense platoon (Mistral) and one Cobra artillery counterbattery radar.

Later followed by a second 700 men-bataillon as soon as the first one has settled.

Spain should send 800-1000 Marine infantrymen, while Italy will send a total of 2.450 soldiers including the "Garibaldi" carrier.

Source (sorry in french)

[billybob2002 0]

A bit of revisionist history there, I think. As FDR didn't get the US into the war against either the Nazis or Japan at any time, he couldn't have got it in any earlier. The US was forced into the war.

I know but I was saying that FDR was anti-Nazi and he (therefore, the United States) would not have sided with the Nazis to fight the Soviets (I was rebutting what Buzzard said). In addition, he would have probably gotten the United States into the war to fight the Axis before Pearl Harbor happened if he had the support, governmental and public, and the military strength.

Why am I still on this subject....

the USA had a strong policy of isolationaism until pearl harbor.  Without it, they wouldnt have got into the war.  They were making a tidy profit from countries fighting the war (Britian, China etc.), and it wasnt in there best interests to get involved.  Also you have to ask yourself who did america hate more, Nazis or communists?  and if you arnt suckered by hollywood, then communists would have won every time in the 30's and 40's.   If things turned out differently , i bet it would be much more likely the US to side with germany against russia than the other way round. (had germany not invaded france)

The United States didn't have a strong policy of isolationaism in 1940 and 1941. There was the Habana Conference, the Destroyers for Bases deal with Great Britian, the military buildup, Secretary Hall's speeches about the "threat" to the United States, the Lend-Lense Act, the revision to the Neutrality Act of 1939 after the Nazis attacked American merchant ships, and etc. It was clear that the Federal Government favored one side over the other and was active international. It is highly unlikely that the United States would have sided with the Nazis if FDR was still the President.

Off-topic....

Soon, a first 900 men-bataillon, belonging to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, will deploy in Lebanon including one squadron of Leclerc tanks, two mecanized infantry companies (AMX-10P), one 155mm AuF1 armoured self-propelled artillery group, one short range Air Defense platoon (Mistral) and one Cobra artillery counterbattery radar.

Why would France sent a Mistral platoon?

Edit: I made it better

[mp_phonix 0]

Another question -

Quote[/b] ]I prefer calling them terrorist.

Who said that?

I did.

Why ? something wrong with this ?  

@SPQR

Quote[/b] ]"Garibaldi" carrier.

You mean an Airctaft carrier ?

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why would France sent a Mistral platoon?

ask the U.N

[Garcia 0]

The United States didn't have a strong policy of isolationaism until Pearl Harbor. There was the Habana Conference, the Destroyers for Bases deal with Great Britian, the military buildup, Secretary Hall's speeches about the "threat" to the United States, the Lend-Lense Act, the revision to the Neutrality Act of 1939 after the Nazis attacked American merchant ships, and etc. It was clear that the Federal Government favored one side over the other and was active international. It is highly unlikely that the United States would have sided with the Nazis if FDR was still the President.

Off-topic....

Funny, many (and according to what I've heard a vast majority) of historians mean that USA had a strong policy of isolationism until WWII. You can see this clearly. In every war up to WWII USA didn't bother. They tried to keep out of conflicts, but after WWII they've been meddling a lot. They've been in more conflicts than anyone else (at least not many who beat them...). They were reluctant to enter both WWI and WWII, they didn't bother to colonize anything (though they had some "indirect colonizing in east-asia, where they used their navy to force china or something into making good deals with USA...think it's been called "diplomacy colonization" or something). Generally historians seems to agree that USA isolated themself rather much from the rest of the world until they were forced into WWII (don't remember when they mean it started...think it was after the civil war or something).