How far back do you want to go? The 'here first' game is a stupid-arsed move for anyone to make when talking about that region.




Damn near everyone living in the region *except* the xtians are semites! Jews have no particular claim to the title of 'semite'.




Bollocks, my dear chap.

The Soviets had more than enough oil of their own and always did have - wanna take a quick guess at how much oil the USSR was importing from the Arab world prior to 1990?

Of course, if you want to persist in your 'warm water port would have killed us' I'd be more than fascinated for you to explain it in detail. How exactly would it have killed 'us'?




The US started funding Israel for two reasons and two reasons alone: the disproportionately strong lobbying power of Jews in the US and the fact of other countries in the region moving towards being client powers of the USSR. The US, pure and simple, was contesting with the USSR by proxy.




Debatable. An act of war or a criminal act?
Bush, however, is poised to invade a sovreign nation.

That clearly *is* an act of war. The UN resolutions permit *UN* forces to enter the country if Iraq has not disarmed. They do not permit Bush to do so for the reason of wanting to change the regime there, no matter how detestable it may be. Yet all the competent and unbiased authorities agree that Iraq *has* been substantialy disarmed of proscribed weapons and that there is little left there to do.

So why invade? The is no pressing legal or moral reason to invade.




Yet it is clear that no link between those accused of committing the actions of 11 September and Iraq has ever been demonstrated. Why attack a country not involved in the events?




Funny, Europe did okay fighting terrorists throughout the 1950's to 1970's on the basis of them being criminals. Shame the US police forces are incapable in comparison.

Hebrew (Israel) came out of Babylon (Iraq) They and the Assyrians (Now mostly Iraqi/ Christian) are semites. Iranians are Persians. Afghans? A mix of everything from Mongol to Caucasian.

Who has a right to the land? Whomever has the strongest army and/or god.

Tiger...

I told this to LB once and we never had a problem again.

Stop talking shit and prove it. You can talk and talk and try to insult, but the fact is I am backing up my claims, you blow smoke.

I will not reply to you until you do so, for it (not you, you can be quite enjoyable at times) is not worth it.

Tigerjez


So what are you saying, ?That Israel is the master race here and the Palestinians are the ?Slavic redskins?? They are the beacon of civilization while the Palestinians are the barbarians?



Just because you know how to win wars doesn?t make you right. Israel only one those wars with the help of the United States. In one of those wars, the Israeli army was almost destroyed by Egyptian SAM and ATGM attacks. It a matter of weeks they received arms shipments from the United States to make up those losses.



what was that? The Palestinians can starve out in the desert while Israel carries on?



I get the impression that you view any Muslim civilian Arab as the only people that are terrorists. Anybody that used FEAR (terror) as a weapon is a terrorist. Be it a civilian or a state government.



Most of the Israeli bombs they get hit with say ?Made in America?. No wonder they cheer.



I am beginning to think it is the kiddy table that they will be at.


&


I am just curious, but are you a psychiatrist? You seem to be able to diagnose the metal capacities of people and categorize them as jackasses or fuckwits.
----------
To Ford Prefect

Tigerjez has posted sources to back up claims, but the ones I have checked out seem to be pro-Israeli. I have found it is very difficult to find non-biased information on this subject.

Peace---

My point is all the recent (last three pages) of her claims and her judgements on my mental capability... are not backed up...

that's my point.. she may have backed up her's but she hasn't backed up why I am wrong...

3 threads to me. i'll be here for a while it looks like...

I'll take the easiest one first, so ford, it looks like i get to slap you around like a little cyber-bitch for a while. it ain't talking shit if you can back it up.

from your CNN article:



the terrorists are civilians. you can make a case for how the elite guard of the PA Yasser Arafat who issued the inifitada are really "innocent civilians," but that's a big dog to walk.

the yahoo article is gone, but even taking what was posted on the messageboard (BWAH HA HA!) you linked as "evidence:"



looks like no eggs were broken there.

to re-iterate though, the question isn't will "innocents" be lost. the question is...is that loss justified or excused?

Next...

You are going to debate a matter of opinion?

Hitler thought jews were expendable... does that make it right?

Can you prove him wrong?

Amazing how you just glance over things that don't work with your argument. Its speculation I realize but so is all of this unless you happen to be in the PLO.



Arafat's personal bodyguards are not suicide bombers and in fact, you cannot prove they are terrorists. Arafat has been campaigning for peace (unsuccessfully I realize) but it is ruined because he cannot control the other palestinian factions. Its like killing Secret Service members.



Do you insist on ignoring information? People could have died, their own instincts stopped them. Only luck kept them alive. It DOES PROVE MY POINT that israel is not afraid to kill innocents... but you've already admitted that so I'm done.

Can you honestly even tell me what you are debating with me about? I'm not sure.

well, i agree. after all, i argued earlier that whatever right to the land has been directly voided by the palestinians own actions. not to mention voluntary de-campment, gross waste, and legitimate conquest. however, for those fucktarded enough to overlook the history of the latter half of the 20th century, the jews have a claim to the land.



jews don't refer to themselves as semites that often. anti-semites do though. the term "anti-semite" came about in nazi germany when the nazis got bored using the term judenhass to refer to "jew haters."



a fuck-load.

it's why they oppose war with iraq. russian oil is heavy. you can use it to run a diesel engine, but it sucks balls to refine it into the grade they needed for military operations. so..they traded with iraq and libya which have great quality oil. they sold them the heavier oil, took their better oil, and ran a nice side-deal for bullets and arms. when russia lost their best oil fields in the 90s, they also lost their refining capability by about 50%. they have great e&p potential with sakalin, but that will take time.

oh yeah, and since 1) you aren't fucking me and 2) i'm not a guy, don't call me "my dear chap" if you think what i've said is "bollocks."



the USSR collapsed because of economic implosion. the biggest source for this was the fact that they could never dominate the oil trade because of shipping barriers: namely, they didn't have a warm water port to transport oil into and out of. their pipelines suck balls. they actually currently employ US companies to go and gather oil which leaks from them, scoop it up on the ground, and run it back into the pipeline.

they moved to Latin America seeking oil and warm water transport. the middle east was embroiled in fighting to prevent them access to such. it also prevented them from running pipelines. their other global campaigns couldn't be sustained without a cashcow. COMCON (i think that was their exchange) failed miserably.

had they gotten access to a warm water port, they arguably wouldn't have imploded. the cold war might still be going on, or we could be speaking russian in the US. in any event, the US would not be the world's one superpower & the EU would have been substantially hindered from the progress it made in privatization in the 90s.




yes, yes, the great zionist conspiracy.

*yawn*

it sounds nice, but it is patently untrue. for one thing, jews haven't had too much power in the US and certainly not when we began funding israel. for another reason...in addition to the Marshall plan, we heavily funded democracies in the Middle East concluding WWII. this included the new-found israel, but iran under mossadeq got about $30 million or so. we staged a coup when he threatened to go commie.

the latter reason re: USSR is true without a doubt. However, any sane person can see that israel is a functioning democracy (such as we relate to the term) and there was ideological reason to support this & not allow them to be blown off the map in the name of Allah. Plus, shortly before the vietnam war, the israelis blew up our USS Liberty to run both the USSR and the US out of their hood & keep that war out. So, unlike ford claimed, they are our "ally," but not our lap dog.




see above.

If you are holding up Europe as a good example of successful fighting of terrorism, you must either be another canadian or a college kid. The munich olympics are a great example of europe's approach to terrorism. so are the al quaeda cells in germany and france. follow the money.

-- tj

Will you stop comparing people to kids and canadians and saying any "sane" person blah blah blah... It is getting old and uh... not everyone agree with your opinion of sane and what is correct so just get off it. How about just sticking to your info and stop acting like you are are better then others, which you aren't if you have time to post on here hehe



which the US started with their own corrupt disingenuous and ineffectual bureacracy. Night!

I am saying what i said: Israel is the superior and more rational society. It doesn't have a thing to do with genetics or skin color. it has to do with society, ideology, and action.



Agreed. But, when it is a battle for land, then yes, fighting those 5 battles tends to suggest resolution. this is especially true when the israelis, unlike the arab world, have not been fighting to throw the palestinians out or blow them off the map.



Barak's total aquiesence at Camp David. The only dealbreaker was jerusalem. the jews aren't ever going to let the PA emulate Saudi and turn it into moslems-only. you do realize that no non-muslim can approach Mecca for 25 miles.



you are wrong. i do not view all arabs as terrorists. there are a billion muslims in the world and a hell of a lot of arabs.

however, i view the arab world as the chief terrorists in the globe. they are. it is the main region which promotes as a matter of governmental policy actual terrorism-- the doctrine of specifically targetting civilians for bloody death in order to force a government to capitulate to their demands, this stands to reason. it is not the only one, but it's the one at focus here. the fact is also that arab terrorists are civilians.

this is going to affect the reality of how you go and catch them or dismantle their network.




actually, this cuts back to ford's initial point: israelis kill innocents. although he could not offer evidence from his articles, yes some innocents die. however, why are they being hit with bombs? where are they being hit with bombs? what caused the bombs to be launched?

those are big factors.



lol-- it would be a start and a step up from where they are now.



*hearty chuckle*. nah, you don't need to be a shrink to recognize a bad argument and dish it out a bit ford gives me some flak. i actually wait for first blood to be drawn before going "flame-on."

as a note on my sources:

neutrality comes from looking at both sides of an issue as well as empiric fact and drawing conclusions. the fact that one side is superior does not make you biased. a bias is held if you have an irrational prejudice or preconception.

for instance: do you think the allies in WWII had a clearly superior position? most people would agree this is the case, though due to reason rather than bias.

-- tj

i am actually debating against the equivalence in your initial post on here and a few subsequent ones. i have been trying to get you to acknowledge that innocents die in a war, and yet wars are often justified even with this. i'm also trying to get you to acknowledge that the israelis and us have made a concerted effort to minimize the deaths of innocents.

also...i'm not trying to come off as superior...but, if you are going to challenge me and call me a moron and make some of the statements you have, over issues which are not a simple "difference of opinion," then i will argue a hard line and even employ a harsh tone at times.

no issue is black and white, but there are sometimes clear good guys and bad guys.

-- tj

what the fuck?

Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds.

Saddam supports terrorism against Israel explicitly, and with his own funds.

Saddam is a crazy fuck and he still has the weapons we gave him a long ass time ago.*

*Don't be stupid and say we're at fault here. Look at this objectively and you'll see that we couldn't see in the future and had to gain support from the lesser of two evils in the iraq/iran war. It's a simple concept, try to comprehend.

Putting aside the abuse, thank you for agreeing with me: the 'here first' game is stupid. The Jews, like the Palestinians have no grounds for playing it.

Makes me wonder why you said it if you don't believe it though?

Completely irrelevant. The fact is that the Palestinians are Semities, just like the Jews. You can throw out the anti-semite accusation or insinuation to try and tar people or shut them up, but expect to be called on it.

And I hate to rin on your etymology parade, but the term 'anti-semite' has been around a lot longer than since the 1930's.

umm...because ford (i think) made the bad argument of "palestinian homeland" and the jews have a clear right to the land on a number of bases including history and homeland.

was this unclear?

heh, not to be a bitch, but...

the term "anti-semite" refers to jews. the same way that "palestinian" refers to arabs regardless of who lived in "palestine" 1000 years ago. both are relevant. "palestinian" is relevant because it is a manufactured culture. the term "anti-semite" came about in 1879 by an anti-semite German. it became popular worldwide under the nazis in germany to replace "judenhass" because the jews were the only semites in the country in any real numbers. so, quibble if you want to, but "anti-semitic" means israeli-hating or jew-hating in 2003.

-- tj

actually, that argument is as flimsy as a wet piece of paper.

jewish people were not the first people to live in that area, and in fact forcibly displaced the people before them. a few hundred years later, the jews were essentially kicked out. and a few hundred after that jews across europe and america flooded back in to the region and forcibly displaced the people that had been there...........who are actually decended from the ORIGINAL (ie: people who were there before the jews first settled) inhabitors of the land.

the "homeland" argument works for both sides, yet for some reason the isralis have been deluding themselves to that fact.

and at any rate, by that very argument, you would justify the entire world to go to war to take back what is "rightfully" theirs.

Who mentioned zionism? Not me. You can try for the inferential smear by trotting out the 'great zionist conspiracy' disdain, but it isn't going work on me, sorry.

I said, just as others have said at many times and in many places, that the Jewish lobby in the US exerts disproportionate influence upon the US political scene.




Then why do so many political commentators comment upon it? You're going to try and dismiss them with the 'zionist conspiracy loony' lable too?




I'm not sure you can rationally lable Israel a 'functioning' nation in any meaningful way, nor is it particularly democratic.

The place is an economic and political basket case, with far too many special interest groups weilding undue power over the destiny of the entire country.




The conventional definition. I'll say it again: Iraq is a sovereign nation. what makes you say it isn't? It's recognised as one by the UN.




It doesn't matter shite whether the place is a shithole or not. The UN Charter, to which the US is a ratified signatory, forbids wars of aggression against other sovereign nations. If the US were so concerned with invading countries that haven't 'been nice' then they should be starting with a whole lot of other places first and have started a long time ago.




Oh, how convinient is that? Bush needs an excuse and one suddenly appears. Just like the previous bundles of 'evidence', you'll have to excuse me if I wait for this latest 'revelation' to be confirmed before leaping for the machine gun and running off to sort Saddam out.

I mean, so far, every time the US or UK have fronted up with 'evidence' it's turned out to be false at best and fabricated at worst. Given that Spain is also a comitted party to the war against Iraq you'll also have to excuse that additional scepticism I have at this point. The fact that one of the first moves was to hand the evidence over to *lawyers* wanting to sue *Iraq* in a US court also fails to inspire me with confidence.




That may all be true (and if it is then it is due largely to the efforts of the Bush Administration), but the point I made was that Bush has no legal mandate from the UN or previous UN resolutions.

Do *try* and reply to the point, won't you?




So what you're saying is that even if Iraq weren't involved, it's a candidate for being invaded because it happens to *neighbour* countries that *have* supported terrorism in the past?! Doesn't that strike you as being at least a *slightly* screwy way to view the world and other countries in it? Ar you going to cheer the invasion of Brunei or Singapore because they happen to be next to Indonesia?!




If you'd been listening to the outside world you'd see that quite a few countries (including France and Russia) have *clearly* stated they will not attack Iraq to remove Saddam (a stated goal of the Bush admin and not authorised under *any* UN resolution) nor will they join an attack to remove proscribed weapons until such time as a new UN resolution instructs it.

BTW, can you provide any pointers to German arms or oil deals with Iraq?




So why not do it ten years ago? Why try and link it to terrorism? The imple fact is that Bush has no legal right to go into Iraq in order to, as he has stated is is reason, remove the current regime. Why not invade Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds earlier? North Korea? Any one of several countries on the African continent? The Balkans? Hell, Bush has said he wants to get *out* of the Balkans, so humanitarian concnerns are hardly high on the Bush Admins list of priorities.

the disdain is there because this is a spin of "the great zionist conspiracy" and a fallacy. when has the "Jewish lobby exerted disproportionate influence?" and disproportionate to whom? certainly not any other notable minority group. if you mean pro-israeli, those are not all jews. a lot of them are cold war holdovers. a big chunk are also those who remember the OPEC embargo of the 70s.



you will have to go down a list of commentators, but apart from pat buchanan, currently they do so because the arabs have become the cause celebre of the relativistic left-- shifting the jews oddly enough, to the right. the arab world has sent 2 waves of immigration to the US in the latter half of this century. they have gained power in the US political and educational scene in the last 10 years.

now, commentators can say "we just want to help the jews" because of our jews, but this doesn't make them correct. we aided israel for the reasons i pointed out above: a check on communism, an honest western ideology, and a commitment to the state which the UN incepted. we also aided them because of our jews, but not to the extent you seem to think.



you base this on.... ?

their parlimentary system and constitution is one of the best in the world. at present, they have realized that after 60 years of undeserved open season on jews and 30 months of infitada after barak gave the PLO the deal of the century, a hard line is required. that is reality. it is not a political basket case any more than denmark (with multiple parties) or the US (with multiple PACs)



the soverign nation is such a weak argument. it fails on 4 grounds:

1. the conventional definition of "sovereign" as applied to states is: "self-governing or independent." it goes to the state. not the leader. iraq is a totalitarian tyranny maintained by terror, FEAR, oppression, extermination, and deprivation of the populace. this is not rule by the state. it is rule by 1 man. you are going to have to go a long way to show that an insane and immoral sovereign = sovereign state as contemplated by the UN.

2. hussein's iraq is a rogue nation in violation of every UN sanction sent their way for the past 13 years-- including the ones which ceased fire to the last war. blix even admitted this today! again, the fact the UN recognizes the country doesn't mean it recognizes a lifetime rule for saddam hussein. it does mean there would be bitching about the US trying to make iraq its 51st state, but that's never been the goal.

3. it assumes the UN an objectively neutral or moral institution. it's not. i.e. that the U.N. is acts as a judge where the nations of the world put aside their petty self-interest and do whatever is in the best interests of humanity. they don't.

4. it overlooks the moral heart of the matter:

* Is Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? yes
* Is it a proven threat to its neighbors? yes
* Is it a proven threat to its own people? yes
* Is it a proven threat to our allies? yes
* Is it willing to export terrorism abroad? yes
* Is it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? yes
* Is it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? yes
* Would Saddam's people be better off without him? yes
* Would we and our allies be better off without him? yes
* Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? yes
* Would getting rid of him make it less likely that another 9/11 repeats? yes


finally, it also overlooks article 51 which gives a right to defense in the case of threat.



seriously, where do you live? this is not some radical notion. the newest evidence is from spain directly tieing hussein to al quaeda as reported in the guardian. if there is a more anti-american rag out there, i can't think of it, can you?

nevertheless...this is a war on terror. hussein's ties to terror have been proven time and time again. his domestic terror has been proven time and time again. by both sides of the political spectrum. he also sits smack dab in the middle of saudi, iran, pakistan, and syria. the bad boys on the block. he trades oil with syria and trains their terrorists. taking him out is an integral part in re-shaping the middle east.

why do we do it now? because the WTC and pentagon were bombed on 9/11 & it finally became worth the cost to do so.



Do *try* and reply to the point, won't you?[/quote]

*hearty chuckle*. what part of "Hussein has been in flagrant violation of the resolutions which put the cease-fire into effect 12 years ago. even blix argues this" did you fail to grasp?




nope. not screwy at all. iraq IS involved in terrorism. he IS involved in arms trafficking. he IS a threat and conduit for these guys to work together. he IS integral to defeating the war on terror. think of it this way: in WWII, the "axis" powers had 3 primary countries. there were 2 main threatres of battle. the war is on terror. hussein is on the away team. iraq is a theatre of battle.



yes, but they objected clearly because of economics! just like i said. here ya go... you remember that 12,000 page report which was heavily redacted? it showed germany as being iraq's #1 arms supplier: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1 ... _A,00.html they've also got more than a few guys running side-games: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true as well as terror cells: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articled ... icleid=437 as for oil deals, germany is not a direct oil player. however, they have unequivocally allied themselves with france and russia whose deals with total fina elf and lukoil now face jeopardy. http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins021103.asp




the world is not motivated by altruism. 12 years ago, our goal was to get him out of kuwait to ensure a lower price of oil. there was also no threat to us but economic. at that time, old europe agreed. so, we ran him out and turned it over to the UN. look how well that has gone.

but... what a bad bad argument you make:

"ooh, we didn't take him out 10 years ago! let's let him go free now!"

-- tj

Tiger...


Sigh... you make my head hurt...

I never said innocents wouldn't be killed in war. IN FACT, I said that America and Israel would be willing to kill innocents to ge their way in regards to a comment you made towards the purity of Israeli and American actions PAGES ago. We've been arguing to completely different things. No wonder I haven't admitted it, I actually said it before you did.

And as far as flaming goes, I am against insults. You started insulting people, don't make me the agressor, because you'd be wrong.

So let's get this over with. I freely admit innocents die in war. I was arguing that they would die, and that israel wouldn't be afraid to break eggs for their omelet. Seems my point has continually gone over your head... No, more likely you just have assumed wrong, which can happen.

And you've already admitted what I wanted... that America and Israel will kill innocents (as few as they can, but they will) to get their goal.

That is all I wanted.

Ford--

your initial point was actually that americans didn't mind killing innocents. this is actually different from the fact that innocents will be killed. it is also patently untrue and comes very close to equivalence arguments i find abhorrent. especially when discussing israel/palestine.

as for the personal...

not only did you initiate the straight up name-calling, but the tone of your posts, poor cites, and patronization set you up for all the "flaming" you got in kind from me. don't whine if your panties get singed a bit.

that[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]s what I just said.
Your first few sentences repeated me with different words, thanks.

So now you've admitted you started it? Pick a truth please, the only thing you are consistant on is being superior.

My panties aren't singed, in fact all you've managed to do is take a good intellectual point and make it into a shouting match, which I promptly ignore.

shhh....listen carefully...

the speed with which my post is flying right over ford's head is close to breaking the sound barrier.

Oh, gee, that proved something. ::yawns::