# i hope this aint true



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/...iran/index.html

please no more war i hope its not true find another way


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

There's no need for the U.S. to send in ground troops, airstrikes alone can level Iran.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

America is losing in Iraq, why would they want to lose in Iran too.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Election results would show that the majority of americans who care at all about voicing their opinion support the guy who is guaranteeing perpetually being at war with somebody, what did you expect would happen when you re-elected him?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

who said it was a war? Its surgical strikes...and as far as losing the war....um ok...sure.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I don't believe the American public would support military action on Iran, we've got to finish up in Iraq first. I would think its stupid and baseless at the moment because there's more profound enemies and threats like North Korea to fully deal with.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

User said:


> I would think its stupid and baseless at the moment because there's more profound enemies and threats like North Korea to fully deal with.
> [snapback]848766[/snapback]​


It was stupid and baseless to attack Iraq because there were more pressing issues in Iran and North Korea to deal with and yet, here we are. Don't sell the monkey's ambition short, the source for the article also claimed the administration is making the same prediction they did before Iraq, that all the local arabs would succumb to their deep rooted love for america and joyously welcome you guys as liberators. sh*t like that, that is so far rooted in fantasy and delusion is the scariest part of the Bush administration.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Overall I just don't see this attack happening anytime soon, if the attack does occur it will shock the hell out of me - nuff said.


----------



## stonecoldsteveostin (Nov 15, 2003)

lmfao, since when are we losing the Iraqi war?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

grnlemonade said:


> lmfao, since when are we losing the Iraqi war?
> [snapback]848789[/snapback]​


if you prefer, America has already hoplessly failed to acheive their stated objectives in Iraq with the use of their military and only served to further the cause of their enemies. Why would they want to do the same with regards to Iran. I have a prediction. The upcoming Iraqi election will have, 1. no effect at all on insurgency or rate of growth of insurgeny: 40%. 2. Make things much much worse by pissing of shite majority with rigged win for pro-american candidate Allawi and loss for Sistani's pro Iranian dude Hakim: 60% . make things better for U.S: 0%. time will tell.


----------



## flyboy (May 11, 2004)

ok, first of all, we are definatly NOT losing the war in iraq. it is hard to fight a war on terrorists. they are not people, they are animals. they use innocent people as shields and decoys. it was the same in 'Nam. which we didnt take the right strategies to win that war. when you are fighting a bunch of pansies that hide in caves and hospitals, it is best not to put men in danger. just level out hostile territory. and for the war on iran, i dont think we will ever do that. they have nuclear weapons and they aren't afraid to use them. its a lose lose situation. you would have to disarm them before taking any military action.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

BHAH!









that was funny, lets see over 1000 casualties in american soldiers, much more Civilians killed ummm... American efforst still havent stopped terrorists from their evil deeds. majority of Iraqi ppl just want the Yanks to get their asses outta there, but of course that has to be winning









Your right, americans arent loosing, neither are terrorists, its a Stale-Mate, the only loosers are those who died in the war


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hmm...

*waits patiently for his time to rise to great power*


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> hmm...
> *waits patiently for his time to rise to great power*
> [snapback]849010[/snapback]​











Rise to great power when your in that mental Facility.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Gordeez said:


> Rise to great power when your in that mental Facility.:laugh:
> [snapback]849046[/snapback]​


im not insane. im just.... different..


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> im not insane. im just.... *different*..
> 
> 
> 
> ...











Well, I will agree with you there.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

I don't know how anyone can possibly say we are 'losing' the war in Iraq. The Iraqi war has been AMAZING. Although sometimes falling below expectations, look at it relative to every single other war that has ever been fought. We have lost less than 2000 soliders, an AMAZINGLY low number. We took out the sitting government in a matter of months, and have already moved far in establishing a new police and military force and a democratic governement. US officials have very little involvement in, and are certainly not 'rigging' the election. The voting places will be monitored by Iraqi forces, with American men on high alert in surrounding areas. It's funny that with all we have accomplished, you have to resort to denying the legitimacy of the Iraqi run election. Sad.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> I don't know how anyone can possibly say we are 'losing' the war in Iraq. The Iraqi war has been AMAZING. Although sometimes falling below expectations, look at it relative to every single other war that has ever been fought. We have lost less than 2000 soliders, an AMAZINGLY low number. We took out the sitting government in a matter of months, and have already moved far in establishing a new police and military force and a democratic governement. US officials have very little involvement in, and are certainly not 'rigging' the election. The voting places will be monitored by Iraqi forces, with American men on high alert in surrounding areas. It's funny that with all we have accomplished, you have to resort to denying the legitimacy of the Iraqi run election. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only thing I wish we would've done differently is not dismantle the Baathist police and military..if they were still in place, that would help keep some sort of order in the country - just cut off the head by removing Saddam and his sons from power


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

How can you say America is Not losing in Iraq? The Iraqi freedom fighters or "insurgents" are getting stronger and more effective while America is not. I call that LOSING Remember at the beginning of war Rumsfeld called them 'a bunch of dead enders'? Now look! Remember Bush said “bring em on” well they brought it on . Its clear the “mighty US” can bomb the world into oblivion but they can’t control a small country like Iraq. If the US Bombs Iran that will only make the anti America extremists more powerful. Johns Hopkins University report said 100 000 Iraqis Dead, Mostly women and Children by US bombing , that is an American Source. you really think this will make america safer? America Kills way more civilians than anyone else. while 30 000 feet in the air hiding behind technology.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> ok, first of all, we are definatly NOT losing the war in iraq. it is hard to fight a war on terrorists. they are not people, they are animals. they use innocent people as shields and decoys. it was the same in 'Nam.


Um, exactly. Did we win in 'Nam? Someone remind me....

War is not the way it was in WWII. Look at the Korean War and Viet Nam. Things have changed. If you want to look at it politically, Bush I attacked Iraq directly, Clinton did strikes from air and sea (how many casualties?), and then Bush II has given us over 1000 casualties, these beheadings, more hate from the muslim world, and less respect from the rest of the world.

I hate being political because people polarize (Republican/Democrat). But this president is shifty and stupid at the same time (quite the acheivement). Kerry wasn't a great alternative, I don't really stand with any one political party. But our foreign policy is CRAP right now.

If we attack Iran, I hope we don't make the same (or worse) mistakes.


----------



## sasquach (Dec 6, 2004)

how do you people find out information like this.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> How can you say America is Not losing in Iraq? The Iraqi freedom fighters or "insurgents" are getting stronger and more effective while America is not. I call that LOSING Remember at the beginning of war Rumsfeld called them 'a bunch of dead enders'? Now look! Remember Bush said "bring em on" well they brought it on . Its clear the "mighty US" can bomb the world into oblivion but they can't control a small country like Iraq. If the US Bombs Iran that will only make the anti America extremists more powerful. Johns Hopkins University report said 100 000 Iraqis Dead, Mostly women and Children by US bombing , that is an American Source. you really think this will make america safer? America Kills way more civilians than anyone else. while 30 000 feet in the air hiding behind technology.
> [snapback]849228[/snapback]​


please check out the death/kill ratio.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

acestro said:


> Um, exactly. Did we win in 'Nam? Someone remind me....
> War is not the way it was in WWII. Look at the Korean War and Viet Nam. Things have changed. If you want to look at it politically, Bush I attacked Iraq directly, Clinton did strikes from air and sea (how many casualties?), and then Bush II has given us over 1000 casualties, these beheadings, more hate from the muslim world, and less respect from the rest of the world.
> 
> I hate being political because people polarize (Republican/Democrat). But this president is shifty and stupid at the same time (quite the acheivement). Kerry wasn't a great alternative, I don't really stand with any one political party. But our foreign policy is CRAP right now.
> ...


Technically, the vietnam was wasn't won or lost...but its objective was achieved...it stopped the spread of communism...so in part, the US did win the vietnam war. As far as clinton launching strikes...they were mere diversions....jack sh*t was accomplished. And as far as the "war" in iraq, this isn't a war per se...it is fighting resistence in 3-4 main cities...hardly a war, but a rebellion. They have no central head, mechanical forces, etc.


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

I dont care if america attacks iran as long as they dont drag my country into the war like they did with iraq


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

I think I'm gonna buy my own island and live there. One thing I do know for a law, Piranhas will be legal.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

b_ack51 said:


> I think I'm gonna buy my own island and live there. One thing I do know for a law, Piranhas will be legal.
> [snapback]849456[/snapback]​


i was thinking about this aswell.. but then i realized that its not enough for me.. i want the world.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Peacock said:


> please check out the death/kill ratio.
> [snapback]849425[/snapback]​


Check out cost ratio. America paid 200 billion to kill a lot of innocent civilians and make Islamic extremists more popular in Iraq. And "the Terrorists" killed 10 times more Americans soilders than since Bush said "Mission Accomplished" and they did it all for peanuts, It costs peanuts to kill Americans in Iraq. and More americans will die in iraq then have died so far. I said same thing in April of 2003.

Pre war GDP of Iraq was around 25 Billion. the US could have paid every single Iraqi 8 years salary (and counting) in one lump sum as opposed to war.

America definitely lost Vietnam, game, set and match ( the government they supported Collapsed and was over run by their communist enemy&#8230;.). America will never achieve stated goals in Iraq. "a pro American Iraqi Democracy". America will eventually run away, like in Vietnam and leave an even more dangerous and hostile Iraq then the one they invaded.

This is all just the 3rd crusade folks, check your history. This latest crusade started in 1947 and like the other two before it, the Muslims will eventually win.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

unfortunatly...

this is why we should just nuke the country and not worry about killing civilians.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm not taking sides. Your partisan avatar gives you away. I just don't know what Iraq was doing to us. If it's human rights, there are a few countries in Africa that could have used our help a lot more. Weapons of mass destruction? Let's not start a new debate....

Vietnam was a disaster, there's no way to spin that into a success. Iraq is a disaster now as well. I agree with you (or you agreed with me) about Iraq not really being a war. It's still a mess that we are trying to force into something it is not.



diddye said:


> Technically, the vietnam was wasn't won or lost...but its objective was achieved...it stopped the spread of communism...so in part, the US did win the vietnam war. As far as clinton launching strikes...they were mere diversions....jack sh*t was accomplished. And as far as the "war" in iraq, this isn't a war per se...it is fighting resistence in 3-4 main cities...hardly a war, but a rebellion. They have no central head, mechanical forces, etc.
> [snapback]849430[/snapback]​


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)

NUKE THE BASTARDS


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

WorldBelow07 said:


> NUKE THE BASTARDS
> [snapback]849564[/snapback]​


And then there's this approach...


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

diddye said:


> Technically, the vietnam was wasn't won or lost...but its objective was achieved...it stopped the spread of communism...so in part, the US did win the vietnam war. [snapback]849430[/snapback]​


Communism spread over the entire country of vietnam, so technically and in whole, the US lost the vietnam war.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Technically the war among communism, democracy, and total fascism is ongoing. It exists in China, North Korea, and other practically unknown countries. Its still kicking in Russia, so if anyone thinks Russia is a democracy their full of sh*t. Nam might have helped alittle in the spread of communism in south Asia, but it didn't totally stomp out the problem.


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

diddye said:


> Technically, the vietnam was wasn't won or lost...but its objective was achieved...it stopped the spread of communism...so in part, the US did win the vietnam war. As far as clinton launching strikes...they were mere diversions....jack sh*t was accomplished. And as far as the "war" in iraq, this isn't a war per se...it is fighting resistence in 3-4 main cities...hardly a war, but a rebellion. They have no central head, mechanical forces, etc.
> [snapback]849430[/snapback]​


How the f*ck can you say america even partly won vietnam,the yanks got thier asses kicked.They lost over 56,000 men and women and over 100,000 wounded and also the u.s was nearly bankrupt from that war.In the end the n.v.a and vietcong destroyed the government your country surrported and they reunited vietnam.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

dan-uk said:


> How the f*ck can you say america even partly won vietnam,the yanks got thier asses kicked.They lost over 56,000 men and women and over 100,000 wounded and also the u.s was nearly bankrupt from that war.In the end the n.v.a and vietcong destroyed the government your country surrported and they reunited vietnam.
> [snapback]849576[/snapback]​


Have to agree. I'm still scratching my head over diddye's comments.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

User said:


> Overall I just don't see this attack happening anytime soon, if the attack does occur it will shock the hell out of me - nuff said.
> [snapback]848784[/snapback]​


yeah but nothing like giving them a heads up







god dam idiots (not you user, our government) its as if we're being run by a special ed class..


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

yeah the world is a mess and there as many diferent opinions here as there are problems. But at least there is one thing we can all agree on: Piranhas R cool!


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

mypiranhas said:


> yeah the world is a mess and there as many diferent opinions here as there are problems. But at least there is one thing we can all agree on: Piranhas R cool!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, I don't like piranhas...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

dan-uk said:


> How the f*ck can you say america even partly won vietnam,the yanks got thier asses kicked.They lost over 56,000 men and women and over 100,000 wounded and also the u.s was nearly bankrupt from that war.In the end the n.v.a and vietcong destroyed the government your country surrported and they reunited vietnam.
> [snapback]849576[/snapback]​


So tell me this, would you say america lost the vietnam war or it was a stalemate...which would you say?


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

diddye said:


> So tell me this, would you say america lost the vietnam war or it was a stalemate...which would you say?
> [snapback]850350[/snapback]​


America LOST Vietnam... I work with vets and majority of those who went to Vietnam can honestly tell you that it was a mistake for them to be there and admitt that the US lost that war.


----------



## flyboy (May 11, 2004)

acestro said:


> Um, exactly. Did we win in 'Nam? Someone remind me....
> [snapback]849266[/snapback]​


i never said that we won that war. i said the tactics the enemy used were the same that the iraqi "freedom" fighters are using. they hide behind innocents, go on suicide missions. why do you think the civilian causalty rates are so high? the use them as cover. they hide in schools and hospitals. they are not freedom fighters, they are animals. they do not care about the people of iraq. they only want to reinstate their supreme power. while saddam had mansions the people didnt even have sacks. they with hold all the money from the people, and use it for terrorist attacks. the style of war has changed. there is always the looming threat of nucleare weapons. but the fact remains, how are you going to defeat an enemy who kills himself? their belief system is a cult. do you think real muslims preach about taking innocent civilians hostage and torturing them? and on video? this is how sick they are!


----------



## Papagorgio (Mar 30, 2004)

Do any of you idiots realize that we have plans to go to war with Canada?? Mexico,North and south Korea. Russia "whatever their called now" Syria, India, Pakistan, and Cuba. The fact that it is being talked about only should reassure you that your government is on top of things and planning ahead. Would you want to pay taxes to a government that wasn't thinking ahead. Lets just Flinstone the whole dawm thing???


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Papagorgio said:


> Do any of you idiots realize that we have plans to go to war with Canada?? Mexico,North and south Korea. Russia "whatever their called now" Syria, India, Pakistan, and Cuba. The fact that it is being talked about only should reassure you that your government is on top of things and planning ahead. Would you want to pay taxes to a government that wasn't thinking ahead. Lets just Flinstone the whole dawm thing???
> [snapback]850450[/snapback]​


I am all for invading Cuba - let's get some cigars, bitches !!!


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

flyboy said:


> i never said that we won that war. i said the tactics the enemy used were the same that the iraqi "freedom" fighters are using. they hide behind innocents, go on suicide missions. why do you think the civilian causalty rates are so high? the use them as cover. they hide in schools and hospitals. they are not freedom fighters, they are animals. they do not care about the people of iraq. they only want to reinstate their supreme power. while saddam had mansions the people didnt even have sacks. they with hold all the money from the people, and use it for terrorist attacks. the style of war has changed. there is always the looming threat of nucleare weapons. but the fact remains, how are you going to defeat an enemy who kills himself? their belief system is a cult. do you think real muslims preach about taking innocent civilians hostage and torturing them? and on video? this is how sick they are!
> [snapback]850398[/snapback]​


I don't think we disagree. The fact is both situations were very messy and maybe places we didn't need to go.

I also don't think Cuba has the best cigars....


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

diddye said:


> So tell me this, would you say america lost the vietnam war or it was a stalemate...which would you say?
> [snapback]850350[/snapback]​


Gee, the guys America wanted to stop from taking over Vietnam took over Vietnam, and the guys who wanted to turn it into a communist country against America's wishes turned it into a communist country, sure sounds like the North Vietnamese didn't win despite achieving 100% completion of their objective at the onset of the war. Also sounds like America didn't lose despite a complete failure to stop Vietnam from going 100% communist controlled...

What's your logic exactly?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> America will never achieve stated goals in Iraq. "a pro American Iraqi Democracy". America will eventually run away, like in Vietnam and leave an even more dangerous and hostile Iraq then the one they invaded.
> [snapback]849480[/snapback]​


You obviously have not been paying attention to the progress or news at all. January 30 baby.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> You obviously have not been paying attention to the progress or news at all. January 30 baby.
> [snapback]850700[/snapback]​


The elections are a joke, they're nothing more than a symbolic gesture so that America can say "hey guys look, we're winning and making progress!". Considering much of Iraq is still under curfew and therefore candidates can not even campaign, or that turnout is likely to be terrible due to the inability to provide any degree of safety to civillians or that millitants have admitted they are planning a large scale assault on the elections, to say "haha we had an election things are going good" is a f*cking joke.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> The elections are a joke, they're nothing more than a symbolic gesture so that America can say "hey guys look, we're winning and making progress!". Considering much of Iraq is still under curfew and therefore candidates can not even campaign, or that turnout is likely to be terrible due to the inability to provide any degree of safety to civillians or that millitants have admitted they are planning a large scale assault on the elections, to say "haha we had an election things are going good" is a f*cking joke.
> [snapback]850703[/snapback]​


Unfortunately yes...
No matter how good the intentions are: if a good deal of the population can't vote because their area isn't safe, even for Coalition soldiers, if people are affraid to vote because their care takers (ie. Coalition) can't promise them they will leave their voting booth with all their limbs still attached, if people don't even know who to vote for because candidates are too affraid to campaign because they know they'll end up head-less in a ditch, if people that want to run as candidate are more or less fair game as soon as they go public, how on earth can you call that a real succes? How can you even call that free elections? The only real candidates are those the Coalition wants to protect - everyone else stands no chance: if that's freedom, I guess the dictionary needs to be rewritten...

It's a symbolical thing - not even a victory - and it'll most definitely not change anything in Iraq - after 01/30 it remains as dangerous and as much a haven for terrorists as before.
The US being there is the problem (well, one of them, but one of the most important ones), and as long as that doesn't change, there's nothing won. Not that there's anything to win as soon as the coalition leaves, because it'll probably even get worse...
It's a bloody stalemate, and the ones that pay the highest price are the ones who just have to bend over and swallow whatever goes on in their land, without being able to do anything about it - the common Iraqi's, torn between the Coalition on one side and resistance/terrorism on the other.
I hope they'll get past this...









As far as Vietnam goes: the US was beaten fair and square - I mean, the last remaining Americans didn't know how fast they had to get out of there: the army evacuated Saigon with the tail between the legs...
How can you even see that as a stalemate, let alone a victory???


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Very well said


----------



## jamesdelanoche (Dec 15, 2004)

I was going to post but online arguing is stupid. America spoke with their vote and it makes me sad. Enough said.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> You obviously have not been paying attention to the progress or news at all. January 30 baby.
> [snapback]850700[/snapback]​


Oh I've been paying attention to the news. America said things would calm down once power was handed to Provisional Coalition Authority. Things just got worse. Then Americans said things would calm down when power was handed to Interim Governing Council. Didn't happen things just got worse. Then It was the June 30th had over of power to the Interim Iraqi Government of Allawi. Didn't happen, things got worse, then it was Invasion of Fallujah&#8230;things still got worse. Soon America will say things will get better when "elected Iraqis write constitution and hold real election to be held at end of 2005. YA RIGHT! Why do you keep falling for the same gag? the insurgents don't care about these arbitrary dates. never have, never will.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Gee, the guys America wanted to stop from taking over Vietnam took over Vietnam, and the guys who wanted to turn it into a communist country against America's wishes turned it into a communist country, sure sounds like the North Vietnamese didn't win despite achieving 100% completion of their objective at the onset of the war. Also sounds like America didn't lose despite a complete failure to stop Vietnam from going 100% communist controlled...
> 
> What's your logic exactly?
> [snapback]850693[/snapback]​


First of all, the objective of the vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. Somebody mentioned china, n. korea, and vietnam. I'll add cuba. Now...look at the date of the vietnam war and look and when these listed countries were communist. After the vietnam war, name how many countries became communist? Now, list how many more became democratic. And at the end of this month, you can add one more democratic country to the list. Again, if the objective to stop the spread occurred, I consider that a success...the vietcong may have won vietnam, but it did not spread. These countries were communist BEFORE vietnam.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

My one and only comment about Vietnam and losing the war is the politicians sitting on their asses in Washington D.C. lost the war, not the U.S. soldier. For that reason, the vet carries the burden of the nation for losing it on their backs and minds. You can't fight a war with your hands tied in political correctness nor public support.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

diddye said:


> First of all, the objective of the vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. Somebody mentioned china, n. korea, and vietnam. I'll add cuba. Now...look at the date of the vietnam war and look and when these listed countries were communist. After the vietnam war, name how many countries became communist? Now, list how many more became democratic. And at the end of this month, you can add one more democratic country to the list. Again, if the objective to stop the spread occurred, I consider that a success...the vietcong may have won vietnam, but it did not spread. These countries were communist BEFORE vietnam.
> [snapback]850976[/snapback]​


That is some serious twisting of the facts to somehow claim a blatant loss was a victory. I doubt the Viet Cong proving that peasants could kick the sh*t out of the world's biggest democratic super power had much to do with stemming the spread of communism in the world. At any rate it did not stop a communist uprising from occuring in Nicaragua or any of the other unsucessful communist uprisings in latin america.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

diddye said:


> First of all, the objective of the vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. Somebody mentioned china, n. korea, and vietnam. I'll add cuba. Now...look at the date of the vietnam war and look and when these listed countries were communist. After the vietnam war, name how many countries became communist? Now, list how many more became democratic. And at the end of this month, you can add one more democratic country to the list. Again, if the objective to stop the spread occurred, I consider that a success...the vietcong may have won vietnam, but it did not spread. These countries were communist BEFORE vietnam.
> [snapback]850976[/snapback]​


So you say a war that cost the lives of 2 million Vietnamese, more than 50.000 Americans and an unknown amount of deaths in the neighbouring countries, a succes???
Especially when you consider that:
- the united Vietnam became communist and remained so until the nineties;
- Laos was and remained communist;
- as "collateral damage" Cambodia suffered from the one of the worst 20th century genocides, perpetrated by a Maoist movement backed by China (not saying the US was responsible but the war in Vietnam surely played in making that possible);
- the entire area was completely in shambles;
- the US lost all its influence in an region in which communism in more than one form continued to exist for decades.

Remarkable conclusion, to say the least...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

i hate religion.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> So you say a war that cost the lives of 2 million Vietnamese, more than 50.000 Americans and an unknown amount of deaths in the neighbouring countries, a succes???
> Especially when you consider that:
> - the united Vietnam became communist and remained so until the nineties;
> - Laos was and remained communist;
> ...


For the third time, the main word is SPREAD. And, vietnam was not taken over until the US left. The war wasn't even a collective effort and was fought half assed

*so when does a lot of deaths constitute a failure? So stalin lost millions agaisnt germany yet we all say Russia won*


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

So many hundreds of thousands of deaths to maintain a status quo, and what for?
In fact, maintaining a status quo that wasn't even a status quo: the whole of Vietnam became communist - before the US entered, only the north was - and Cambodia had no Maoist government before the war started in the sixties. And Russia nor China had lost any influence in the area after the US pulled out.
True, the world wasn't flooded with marauding Vietcong, spreading communism all over the globe, but in the area, more people than before the US invasion were under the influence of communism or related ideologies after the US left - how can that be called a succesful intervention?

And the US left because they had no choice - the panic-stricken evacuation of Saigon, where the last Americans where rushed out of the country, was a humiliating sight, to say the least, and is illustrative enough.
Most certainly it was an act of just packing bags and calmly walking out of there....


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

anyways back on topic, i thought this was pretty funny...iran can stop any attack from any country.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/...reut/index.html


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

hastatus said:


> My one and only comment about Vietnam and losing the war is the politicians sitting on their asses in Washington D.C. lost the war, not the U.S. soldier. For that reason, the vet carries the burden of the nation for losing it on their backs and minds. You can't fight a war with your hands tied in political correctness nor public support.
> [snapback]850984[/snapback]​


you think someone would have taken that note


----------



## stilllearnin (Mar 28, 2003)

> Gee, the guys America wanted to stop from taking over Vietnam took over Vietnam,


Funny my History lessons always read FRANCE wanted to take over vietnam and started trying in 1946, couldn't do it and made nothing but a mess so the U.S. attempted (half arsed) to do something starting in 1955.



> And the US left because they had no choice - the panic-stricken evacuation of Saigon, where the last Americans where rushed out of the country, was a humiliating sight, to say the least, and is illustrative enough.


 The U.S. sure did but by that time were was france? or the members of the Geneva Conference who decided to split the country to keep one half free? Seems they bailed out long before









Now history reads (well according to some of you) the U.S. lost it's war.

Should read the U.S.'s foreign policies are always ok when someone want it's help but otherwise someone always has a complaint.

United States best country in the world







20 million illegal aliens can't be wrong


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Um, I don't exactly get what you're saying... You expect France do accomplish something military-wise without Napolean?







sorry France, couldn't resist. (do we have French members at pfury?)

This Iran thing does look serious. Why would they need nukes? Iraq has been their rival for years, maybe they're worried about a democratic "puppet" Iraq?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

acestro said:


> Um, I don't exactly get what you're saying... You expect France do accomplish something military-wise without Napolean?:laugh: sorry France, couldn't resist. (do we have French members at pfury?)
> 
> This Iran thing does look serious. Why would they need nukes? Iraq has been their rival for years, maybe they're worried about a democratic "puppet" Iraq?
> [snapback]851613[/snapback]​


I imagine the reason Iran feels that they need nukes is that Israel has a good number of nuclear warheads pointed right at Iran. And for some reason that's OK and Iran is not permitted to defend themselves and Israel is under no obligation to dismantle its nukes


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> I imagine the reason Iran feels that they need nukes is that Israel has a good number of nuclear warheads pointed right at Iran. And for some reason that's OK and Iran is not permitted to defend themselves and Israel is under no obligation to dismantle its nukes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well w/o getting too far off topic, israel doesn't aim to wipe any foreign arab country off the face of the earth while many arab countries( or at least many citizens) want israel eradicated.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> I imagine the reason Iran feels that they need nukes is that Israel has a good number of nuclear warheads pointed right at Iran. And for some reason that's OK and Iran is not permitted to defend themselves and Israel is under no obligation to dismantle its nukes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You kidding me? Israel wouldn't have or need nukes if it wasn't for bastard neighbors in all directions. If the US backs off and lets Iran get nukes, then Israel will have full authority to wipe Iran off the planet. So either we do it, are let Israel do it and have total war in the middle east that would spread to Asia and into Africa, and who knows where else.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> You kidding me? Israel wouldn't have or need nukes if it wasn't for bastard neighbors in all directions. If the US backs off and lets Iran get nukes, then Israel will have full authority to wipe Iran off the planet. So either we do it, are let Israel do it and have total war in the middle east that would spread to Asia and into Africa, and who knows where else.
> [snapback]851743[/snapback]​


just because YOU think they're "bastards" you feel that one ethnic group has the right to wipe out another? Who exactly will give Israel's 5 million Jews the right to wipe out Irans 75 million muslims and why? Israel was created in 1947 on some very sensitive and controvertial land against the wishes of the local people of the region...if anyone objects they must be bastards? Jerusalem was a Muslim city from around 630 AD until 1967 with the exception of a few crusades...can't blame em for being a little sore. you should examin the source of your beliefs about the region.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

diddye said:


> well w/o getting too far off topic, israel doesn't aim to wipe any foreign arab country off the face of the earth while many arab countries( or at least many citizens) want israel eradicated.
> [snapback]851726[/snapback]​


In fact Israel's primary goal for last 50 years was to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth...just look at pre 1947 map of Middle East. where did Palestine go? of course Israel was not successful. 30 years ago Israeli PM Golda Meyer said "there is no such thing as a Palestinian people." hard to say that now with all those bombs going off. Also Israel attempted in 20 year war to annex south lebanon but also failed.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

well this israel thing has been covered MANY MANY MANY times in previous posts...i'll refrain from starting it up again and rehashing my and others posts. As far as Iran...they're just plans and it shouldn't be a suprise america has plans as its doubtful anything would happen w/o aggression by iran


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> just because YOU think they're "bastards" you feel that one ethnic group has the right to wipe out another? Who exactly will give Israel's 5 million Jews the right to wipe out Irans 75 million muslims and why? Israel was created in 1947 on some very sensitive and controvertial land against the wishes of the local people of the region...if anyone objects they must be bastards? Jerusalem was a Muslim city from around 630 AD until 1967 with the exception of a few crusades...can't blame em for being a little sore. you should examin the source of your beliefs about the region.
> [snapback]851797[/snapback]​


When Muslims had control over Jerusalem it was a desert ghost town, its never been any capital of any muslim nation. Israel was re-created in 1947 on the same land the original jews settled, where do you think these people can from the moon? Where was there original Jewish temple located? As for the "Israelis and Palestinians" if you re-read history you'll find out that the Palestinians had and still have a state called Transjordan created by the U.N.

No independent Arab state has ever existed there, even when the Ottoman Empire ruled that area. Now if you have proof that such a state existed there, I'll listen.









BTW Why did you bring Israel into the topic? I thought this was about Iran.


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

User said:


> When Muslims had control over Jerusalem it was a desert ghost town, its never been any capital of any muslim nation. Israel was re-created in 1947 on the same land the original jews settled, where do you think these people can from the moon? Where was there original Jewish temple located? As for the "Israelis and Palestinians" if you re-read history you'll find out that the Palestinians had and still have a state called Transjordan created by the U.N.
> 
> No independent Arab state has ever existed there, even when the Ottoman Empire ruled that area. Now if you have proof that such a state existed there, I'll listen.
> 
> ...


Very accurate history


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> When Muslims had control over Jerusalem it was a desert ghost town, its never been any capital of any muslim nation. Israel was re-created in 1947 on the same land the original jews settled, where do you think these people can from the moon? Where was there original Jewish temple located? As for the "Israelis and Palestinians" if you re-read history you'll find out that the Palestinians had and still have a state called Transjordan created by the U.N.
> 
> No independent Arab state has ever existed there, even when the Ottoman Empire ruled that area. Now if you have proof that such a state existed there, I'll listen.
> 
> ...


Ghost town? that is rediculous, Jerusalem was a hub of activity for centuries, why do you think they built the Dome of the Rock Mosque there, third holiest site in Islam, why would they build their third holiest site in a ghost town? that makes no sence.

Agreed that Jews settled in this area after kind David conquered the land from original inhabitants the cananites (according to bible) and controled it for some 500 years on and off before romans took it from jews, then christian byzantine empire, then Muslims for longest stretch of control of Jerusalem more than any others, more than jews, who were not original inhabitants according to bible, bible says jews or abraham originated in area now considered in Iraq and then wandered about....

as for Nation state called Palestine? true there was no such state, but there were no nation states in middle east until end of ww1, nation states were not the custom it was Islamic caliphate, there was no syria, lebanon, saudia arabia, kuwait, qatar, UAE, bahrain, Iraq...so whats your point? they should all be given to Israel becaue they weren't nation states even though people lived there for centuries under a different kind of political system? as for trans Jordan or jordan. I think its up to the palestinians to decide where their country is not for others to tell them to pack your bags your country is over there now becuase your the wrong religion. if you're jewish you can stay if not go away.

as for why israel entered topic, it was a reason sited as to why Iran feels they need nukes....as Israel has nukes pointed at Iran's head and they feel they need to defend themselves....


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> In fact Israel's primary goal for last 50 years was to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth...just look at pre 1947 map of Middle East. where did Palestine go? of course Israel was not successful. 30 years ago Israeli PM Golda Meyer said "there is no such thing as a Palestinian people." hard to say that now with all those bombs going off. Also Israel attempted in 20 year war to annex south lebanon but also failed.
> [snapback]851809[/snapback]​










if Israel wanted to "wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth", they could do that in a matter of SECONDS, anytime they want to.. and probably not risk losing anymore of their civilians' lives from their terrorist suicide bombers - not only they haven't wiped Palestine off the face of the Earth, they're actually nice enough to provide electricity to the territories; as well as host a large Arab population inside their own borders - and these Arabs enjoy a higher quality of life and freedom in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> if Israel wanted to "wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth", they could do that in a matter of SECONDS, anytime they want to.. and probably not risk losing anymore of their civilians' lives from their terrorist suicide bombers - not only they haven't wiped Palestine off the face of the Earth, they're actually nice enough to provide electricity to the territories; as well as host a large Arab population inside their own borders - and these Arabs enjoy a higher quality of life and freedom in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East
> [snapback]852036[/snapback]​


The Gaza Strip is the most densely populated place on earth. As it stands now 7000 Jews live on one third of the land and 1.2 million Palestinians are literally fenced in on the other two thirds, Jewish Part is on most of Coast line. Palestinians are not permitted to control their own borders or airspace, they cannot do any trade without going through Israel and paying tax to israel. They have no freedom of movement within their own territories, the must go through Israeli militart check points, in recent uprising Israel has killed more Palestinian children under the age of 16 than all civilians and israeli soilders combined killed by palestinians. Israel has destroyed thousands of homes, uprooted thousands of trees and built a fence in west bank inside palestinian territory, (if they want a fence thats fine but build it on your own land) But gee they get electricity huh, ungrateful bastards!







Oh and it's illegal for non jews to own or rent land inside israel.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> Israel was created in 1947 on some very sensitive and controvertial land against the wishes of the local people of the region.


Let's be real. This is why all of this is happening. From Saddam to Osama to 911 to Iran, we've alienated arab countries with the creation and support of Israel. I guess in a way we can blame Hitler again!

Some good history here guys, I only knew parts of the story. It really angers me how this and some other things are not taught in our schools. It's a little more relevant than Alexander the Great (although that's a cool story too...).

Good thread.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> The Gaza Strip is the most densely populated place on earth. As it stands now 7000 Jews live on one third of the land and 1.2 million Palestinians are literally fenced in on the other two thirds, Jewish Part is on most of Coast line. Palestinians are not permitted to control their own borders or airspace, they cannot do any trade without going through Israel and paying tax to israel. They have no freedom of movement within their own territories, the must go through Israeli militart check points, in recent uprising Israel has killed more Palestinian children under the age of 16 than all civilians and israeli soilders combined killed by palestinians. Israel has destroyed thousands of homes, uprooted thousands of trees and built a fence in west bank inside palestinian territory, (if they want a fence thats fine but build it on your own land) But gee they get electricity huh, ungrateful bastards!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"it's illegal for non jews to own or rent land inside israel" - complete and total bullshit - there is a million Arabs that live inside Israel, as well as people of other nationalities and religions. I'll have you know there are entire Arab villages inside the borders of Israel. As a matter of fact, I have a cousin who lives in Northern Israel and her mom is a teacher in an Arab village. As soon as you said that, you just discredited yourself completely from the argument - want to pull anymore lies out of your ass ? - hey, so how about the "ethnic cleansing" that Israel wants to conduct to "wipe out Palestine from the face of the Earth", like you claim ? As I said before, if they wanted to, it would be done in mere seconds - but they're letting them live.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> "it's illegal for non jews to own or rent land inside israel" - complete and total bullshit - there is a million Arabs that live inside Israel, as well as people of other nationalities and religions. I'll have you know there are entire Arab villages inside the borders of Israel. As a matter of fact, I have a cousin who lives in Northern Israel and her mom is a teacher in an Arab village. As soon as you said that, you just discredited yourself completely from the argument - want to pull anymore lies out of your ass ? - hey, so how about the "ethnic cleansing" that Israel wants to conduct to "wipe out Palestine from the face of the Earth", like you claim ? As I said before, if they wanted to, it would be done in mere seconds - but they're letting them live.
> [snapback]852061[/snapback]​


true there are over a million arabs living inside israel but there is such a thing as the JNL Jewish national lands, which prohibits lands now owned by jews to be sold to or rented to non jews, like in West jerusalem, telaviv...these lands must only be subletted to non jews. as for the Arab areas...seek the comments of the Arab members of Israeli Govenment (who are not allowed to hold sensitive government positions), seek UN comments about treatment of israeli Arabs, seeks laws that prohobit Israeli arab from marrying Palestinian arab (this could lead to immigration into israel)...seek complaints about disproportinate tax expenditure seek info of status infrastructure of Arab villages in israel. don't take my word for it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> true there are over a million arabs living inside israel but there is such a thing as the JNL Jewish national lands, which prohibits lands now owned by jews to be sold to or rented to non jews, like in West jerusalem, telaviv...these lands must only be subletted to non jews. as for the Arab areas...seek the comments of the Arab members of Israeli Govenment (who are not allowed to hold sensitive government positions), seek UN comments about treatment of israeli Arabs, seeks laws that prohobit Israeli arab from marrying Palestinian arab (this could lead to immigration into israel)...seek complaints about disproportinate tax expenditure seek info of status infrastructure of Arab villages in israel. don't take my word for it.
> [snapback]852122[/snapback]​


haha.. OK

And I presume Jewish settlers inside Palestinian territories are treated with great hospitality ?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> haha.. OK
> 
> And I presume Jewish settlers inside Palestinian territories are treated with great hospitality ?
> 
> ...


No, Jewish Settlers who set up armed settlements by force on confiscated palestinian land in violation of UN resolutions and who feel that palestinians have no rights are NOT treated well. They are not treated as well as the Arabs who have been living in israel since long before the creation of israel. I will agree with that but on the other had Jewish settlers are much much better financed than Israeli arabs, Israel gives away homes to be settled by jews on Arab lands. and further to the laws that prohibit non-jews from owning land in israel I found a good link or you: http://www.meforum.org/article/370

I assure you i do not get my fact from "my ass" as you put it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> No, Jewish Settlers who set up armed settlements by force on confiscated palestinian land in violation of UN resolutions and who feel that palestinians have no rights are NOT treated well. They are not treated as well as the Arabs who have been living in israel since long before the creation of israel. I will agree with that but on the other had Jewish settlers are much much better financed than Israeli arabs, Israel gives away homes to be settled by jews on Arab lands. and further to the laws that prohibit non-jews from owning land in israel I found a good link or you: http://www.meforum.org/article/370
> 
> I assure you i do not get my fact from "my ass" as you put it.
> [snapback]852155[/snapback]​


Thanks for the article, very informative. I don't have time to read all of it right now (and I assure I will read the rest later, perhaps today). Two things jumped out at me, however..



> The Palestinian Authority's justice minister, Freih Abu Meddein, announced in early May 1997 that Palestinians who sell land to Jews will face the death penalty and over the next few weeks, at least four Palestinians said to have been involved in such sales were in fact murdered. In addition, Israeli forces rescued a fifth land dealer as he was being spirited from his home near Jerusalem to Ramallah, presumably to be killed. Evidence, both circumstantial and otherwise, pointed to direct PA involvement in each of these murders; indeed, Yasir Arafat himself justified the executions


 - wow !

and..

in "conclusion" part of the article -



> *In sum, the Palestinian Authority has successfully managed to charge Israel with the very sins that it itself is guilty of*. The most striking instances of this success, perhaps, are the many academics and journalists who repeat and reinforce Palestinian charges of Israeli discrimination with regard to land ownership. This climate of distortion has two consequences. First, it misleads politicians, diplomats, and others about the basic facts that underlie the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Second, it encourages Palestinians to harbor unreasonable hopes and make exorbitant demands. These twin problems reinforce each other, and thereby make a genuine peace that much more difficult to achieve.
> 
> This presents a particularly bad precedent for the negotiation of such final status issues as Jerusalem, water rights, and the drawing of borders. It is likely that these final status issues will also be subject to campaigns to portray Israel as an unprovoked aggressor and Palestinians and Arabs as blameless victims. Indeed, there are signs that this has already begun


Once again, thanks, I am bookmarking this


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Why all this fighting over a piece of land, palestine is a shithole anyway


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Man, I have to tell you, this is a great article you found..



> Commentators such as New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis took up these same ideas:
> 
> In Israel today most land is still held in trust by an agency devoted to furthering the Jewish homeland. As a practical matter, land used by Israeli Jews for home or business or farm is hardly ever sold to Arabs. So the idea of Palestinians wanting to keep what land they have is not unusual.10
> *While often repeated, these assertions are based on misconception, error and outright invention. In fact, most of the land in Israel is government-owned, and it is equally available to all Israelis, whether Jewish or Arab*.





> Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land-four-fifths of the entire country-both in theory and in practice. Indeed, about half of the land they cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the ILA.15
> 
> *Moreover, when it comes to residential land, the ILA sometimes offers Israeli Arabs more favorable terms from than it does to Israeli Jews*. Thus, the ILA charged the equivalent of $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre in new Jewish communities near Beersheva while Bedouin families in the nearby community of Rahat paid only $150 for the same amount of land.16 In a different case, when a Jewish policeman from Beersheva, Eleizer Avitan, applied to the ILA to lease land in a Bedouin community under the same highly subsidized terms available to the Bedouins, the ILA refused to lease him land there under any terms, so he sued. Israel's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ILA, saying that what might be viewed as ILA discrimination against the Jewish citizen Avitan was justified as affirmative action for Bedouin citizens.17


So, why does Israel discrimate against Jews in favor of Arabs when it comes to leasing/renting land ?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Man, I have to tell you, this is a great article you found..
> So, why does Israel discrimate against Jews in favor of Arabs when it comes to leasing/renting land ?
> 
> 
> ...


Read the whole thing dude and read between the lines, even in your own quotes...who owns the land, who is leasing to who and how did it get this way?

"JNF lands. The purpose of the JNF, according to both its original charter and its 1953 Israeli charter is to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. There are, thus, formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land to Arabs. That JNF lands are now administered by a government agency does not change this restriction, for JNF land is privately owned and to lease it on exactly equal terms to Jewish and Arab Israelis would violate the 1960 agreement that placed JNF lands under government administration."

And besides I tried to find an article from an American perspective so that you would believe it...read the facts not just the rhetorical questions by the American Authors. shall I quote merely some of comments made by palestinians in Article?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> No, Jewish Settlers who set up armed settlements by force on confiscated palestinian land in violation of UN resolutions and who feel that palestinians have no rights are NOT treated well. They are not treated as well as the Arabs who have been living in israel since long before the creation of israel. I will agree with that but on the other had Jewish settlers are much much better financed than Israeli arabs, Israel gives away homes to be settled by jews on Arab lands. and further to the laws that prohibit non-jews from owning land in israel I found a good link or you: http://www.meforum.org/article/370
> 
> I assure you i do not get my fact from "my ass" as you put it.
> [snapback]852155[/snapback]​


Holy sh*t, I LOVE that article!



> Palestinians who sell land to Jews will face the death penalty1 and over the next few weeks, at least four Palestinians said to have been involved in such sales were in fact murdered.2


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

heh heh...nice jewelz


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> Read the whole thing dude.
> 
> "JNF lands. The purpose of the JNF, according to both its original charter and its 1953 Israeli charter is to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. There are, thus, formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land to Arabs. That JNF lands are now administered by a government agency does not change this restriction, for JNF land is privately owned and to lease it on exactly equal terms to Jewish and Arab Israelis would violate the 1960 agreement that placed JNF lands under government administration."
> 
> ...


Done. There are three types of land in Israel. Government, JNF, and private



> State-owned lands. Israeli Arabs have *equal access* to state-owned land-*four-fifths of the entire country*-both in theory and in practice. Indeed, about half of the land they cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the ILA.15


Private land:


> Private lands. There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs or non-citizens, including Arab foreigners, may freely purchase it.


And then finally JNF land, which is a small fraction of the land in Israel, and which was PURCHASED by PRIVATE parties to keep Israel, a world home for the Jews, open to Jews. It was then given to the government to control, but is still bound by the restrictions of the people who PURCHASED the land initially


> to lease it on exactly equal terms to Jewish and Arab Israelis would violate the 1960 agreement that placed JNF lands under government administration


Finally, the conclusion of this part in the article YOU posted...



> In fact, state land amounts not to 91 percent of Israel's territory but to roughly 80 percent; neither Arabs nor Jews can buy state land; the Jewish National Fund holds no state land; and JNF land is leased, with some restrictions, to Israeli Arabs.


You suceeded in nullifying your own argument.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

that was classic

- "here dude, read this article!"

- "oh no, no, no, uh, read between the lines, or something, oh sh*t, did I even read the article myself ?"


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> that was classic
> 
> - "here dude, read this article!"
> 
> ...


I seriously don't think he did... I read most of the article, and it doesn't come close to saying that the Israeli's unfairly discriminate against Arabs... a FAR cry from what happens with Jews in Arab countries.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Done. There are three types of land in Israel. Government, JNF, and private
> Private land:
> And then finally JNF land, which is a small fraction of the land in Israel, and which was PURCHASED by PRIVATE parties to keep Israel, a world home for the Jews, open to Jews. It was then given to the government to control, but is still bound by the restrictions of the people who PURCHASED the land initially
> Finally, the conclusion of this part in the article YOU posted...
> ...


yes clearly there are legal restrictions on Arabs owning land in israel, of course there is no legal framework regarding israeli settlements in palestinian territory


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> yes clearly there are legal restrictions on Arabs owning land in israel, of course there is no legal framework regarding israeli settlements in palestinian territory
> [snapback]852219[/snapback]​


how about this ? sounds to me like Israel may be discriminating against its own people in favor of Arabs (affirmative action)



> Moreover, when it comes to residential land, the ILA sometimes offers Israeli Arabs more favorable terms from than it does to Israeli Jews. Thus, the ILA charged the equivalent of $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre in new Jewish communities near Beersheva while Bedouin families in the nearby community of Rahat paid only $150 for the same amount of land.16 In a different case, when a Jewish policeman from Beersheva, Eleizer Avitan, applied to the ILA to lease land in a Bedouin community under the same highly subsidized terms available to the Bedouins, the ILA refused to lease him land there under any terms, so he sued. Israel's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ILA, saying that what might be viewed as ILA discrimination against the Jewish citizen Avitan was justified as affirmative action for Bedouin citizens.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> yes clearly there are legal restrictions on Arabs owning land in israel, of course there is no legal framework regarding israeli settlements in palestinian territory
> [snapback]852219[/snapback]​


NO, there's NOT. NEITHER Jews NOR Arabs can purchase state land - and BOTH have EQUAL access to private land ownership!!!

HELL, even BETTER, when it comes to LEASING, Arabs are given preferential treatment!


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Done. There are three types of land in Israel. Government, JNF, and private
> Private land:
> And then finally JNF land, which is a small fraction of the land in Israel, and which was PURCHASED by PRIVATE parties to keep Israel, a world home for the Jews, open to Jews. It was then given to the government to control, but is still bound by the restrictions of the people who PURCHASED the land initially
> Finally, the conclusion of this part in the article YOU posted...
> ...


in the last quote in your post from the article I sited it end with "with some restriction on israeli Arabs" further more all reciprocal arab laws were done post israeli action


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> in the last quote in your post from the article I sited it end with "with some restriction on israeli Arabs"
> [snapback]852230[/snapback]​


Yeah, that's great.. almost the same thing as Palestinian Authority giving the DEATH PENALTY to any Arab leasing the land to a Jew !


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> Ghost town? that is rediculous, Jerusalem was a hub of activity for centuries, why do you think they built the Dome of the Rock Mosque there, third holiest site in Islam, why would they build their third holiest site in a ghost town? that makes no sence.
> 
> Agreed that Jews settled in this area after kind David conquered the land from original inhabitants the cananites (according to bible) and controled it for some 500 years on and off before romans took it from jews, then christian byzantine empire, then Muslims for longest stretch of control of Jerusalem more than any others, more than jews, who were not original inhabitants according to bible, bible says jews or abraham originated in area now considered in Iraq and then wandered about....
> 
> ...


The Dome of rock is built atop the Jewish temples that were destoryed, thats reason enough to claim its third holiest site in Islam simply to keep Jewish, Israelis, Christian out of the city.

Your correct Araham came for mesopotamia modern day Iraq, his descendants settled in all mideast terrorites and through out northern Africa. As the story goes, Jews and Arabs really have the same "father".

True the Ottoman empire broke up and the UK and UN mandated the land(s). But if you look further back in history all the modern arab and the one jewish state existed in that area long before WW1. As for the comment about Palestinians to decide, well why can the Jews or Israelis decide their land then? If you look at artifacts you'll see that Jews have been in that area for thousands of years, Arabs too, in fact a people as one whole won't build its biggest religious symbol (Jewish Temple) if that wasn't indeed its homeland or if they hadn't been their for many years.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Yeah, that's great.. almost the same thing as Palestinian Authority giving the DEATH PENALTY to any Arab leasing the land to a Jew !
> [snapback]852237[/snapback]​


palestinians only began hostility to jews when creation of israel was under way, prior to that there were some problem but minimal compared to now


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> palestinians only began hostility to jews when creation of israel was under way, prior to that there were some problem but minimal compared to now
> [snapback]852242[/snapback]​


what's your point ? I thought we were discussing leasing restrictions

and how do you respond to an example that was brought up several times about Israel discriminating Jews in favor of Arabs in case of leasing land ?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> in the last quote in your post from the article I sited it end with "with some restriction on israeli Arabs"
> [snapback]852230[/snapback]​


Yes, but notice what type of land it is!!!! Jewish National Fund land, which was privately PURCHASED (key word) and organized for a purpose. It is now controlled by the governement under an agreement that they will maintain the original restrictions. This is NOT state land - which is leased equally to Arabs and Jews (actually sometimes Arabs are given preferential treatment), nor private land - which is sold equally to both Arabs and Jews.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> palestinians only began hostility to jews when creation of israel was under way, prior to that there were some problem but minimal compared to now
> [snapback]852242[/snapback]​


Complete bullshit.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> The Dome of rock is built atop the Jewish temples that were destoryed, thats reason enough to claim its third holiest site in Islam simply to keep Jewish, Israelis, Christian out of the city.
> 
> Your correct Araham came for mesopotamia modern day Iraq, his descendants settled in all mideast terrorites and through out northern Africa. As the story goes, Jews and Arabs really have the same "father".
> 
> ...


Indeed, yes nice to hear some someone seemingly thought ful. what I meant was there were no nation states in the modern sence, of course there were palestinians, jews, lebanese...but the modern state thing only happened after ww1. I totally agree that jews have a historical claim to this land as per the bible. Temple mount is fact on the ground...and Dome of the rock was built on Temple mount. Intention of Muslims was to rebuild Temple as they worship same God as Jews...Dome of rock wqs built when muslims invited exile jews to return to holy land after cchristian rule

I think all jews and all palestinians should have equal righst in Holy land


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Okay hears the question to all, how did the modern Palestinians come to be? Very easy.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Complete bullshit.
> [snapback]852249[/snapback]​


It's true Historically relation between jews and muslims much better than jews and christians...Muslims welcomed jews to jerusalem after crusades expelled jews...Saladin


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Okay hears the question to all, how did the modern Palestinians come to be? Very easy.
> [snapback]852252[/snapback]​


I guess modern palestine starts after ww1 when france and england carve up former ottaman empire into arab states...one being Palestine...after WW2 UN decided to partition palestine to jews and arabs, arabs didn't like this so they attacked, jews were tougher and kept taking more land through militarty victory and here we are.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> what's your point ? I thought we were discussing leasing restrictions
> 
> and how do you respond to an example that was brought up several times about Israel discriminating Jews in favor of Arabs in case of leasing land ?
> [snapback]852245[/snapback]​


The article is an American Artcle that sites many quotes and facts about the laws and restsriction is Israel in a favourable light to israel but It also includes the letter of the law and critical reading cleary shows you that your religion is an issue in land onwership in Israel which is the point. If you want to know the other side I recommend you visit The islamic Associtaion for palestine, they will have a different angle. but the facts are the facts.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> It's true Historically relation between jews and muslims much better than jews and christians...Muslims welcomed jews to jerusalem after crusades expelled jews...Saladin
> [snapback]852255[/snapback]​


True, but Christian-Jew relations don't have anything to do with this. Saladin was a great leader, but unfortunately, he was the exception among Arabs, NOT the rule.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> The article is an American Artcle that sites many quotes and facts about the laws and restsriction is Israel in a favourable light to israel but It also includes the letter of the law and critical reading cleary shows you that your religion is an issue in land onwership in Israel which is the point. If you want to know the other side I recommend you visit The islamic Associtaion for palestine, they will have a different angle. but the facts are the facts.
> [snapback]852265[/snapback]​


NO!!! You are STILL misreading the FACTS. I am not talking about the commentary or opinions, but the FACTS. The only land open for OWNERSHIP is PRIVATE land, which is OPEN EQUALLY to both Arabs and Jews!!!


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> True, but Christian-Jew relations don't have anything to do with this. Saladin was a great leader, but unfortunately, he was the exception among Arabs, NOT the rule.
> [snapback]852269[/snapback]​


Saladin was pretty cool and honorable but he wasn't an Arab, he was a Kurd. a muslim kurd


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

The bottom line is,

Today, the Islamic Arabs descendants of Ishmael and Esau bear the same rivalry and suspicion of the Jews that they have always borne for Israel. But that rivalry is greatly intensified by Islamic fundamentalists (Bastards) advocating the destruction of the Jews and Israel. The most dangerous enemy of the west, as well as the Jews, is the incessant Islamic message that fuels the flames of hatred and vengeance, which fuels the fires of terrorism. Monkey she monkey do, if young Arabs or Muslims are tought, see, and hear people preach hated toward Jews, and the all Western peoples they well.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> The bottom line is,
> 
> Today, the Islamic Arabs descendants of Ishmael and Esau bear the same rivalry and suspicion of the Jews that they have always borne for Israel. But that rivalry is greatly intensified by Islamic fundamentalists (Bastards) advocating the destruction of the Jews and Israel. The most dangerous enemy of the west, as well as the Jews, is the incessant Islamic message that fuels the flames of hatred and vengeance, which fuels the fires of terrorism. Monkey she monkey do, if young Arabs or Muslims are tought, see, and hear people preach hated toward Jews, and the all Western peoples they well.
> [snapback]852280[/snapback]​


I agree, but I think the best way to defeat Islamic terror is by truly treating Muslims fairly and not what has been happening since end of Ottaman Empire. There will always be NUTS the trick will be to convince the masses that they are really nuts through fairness, honor and justice. It's too easy for extremists to make case against the west as things stand now, this has to change.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Adding on to my previous post, change is hard but its possible. Look back at the U.S. hundred years ago blacks were slaves, hated, and force to declare they weren't not 100% human. Its the Islamic, Christian, and sometimes Jewish fundamentalists that cause the problems. Someone has to stand up and tell these Islamic haters to f*ck off.

Speaking of hatred, look at Germany 60 years ago.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> NO!!! You are STILL misreading the FACTS. I am not talking about the commentary or opinions, but the FACTS. The only land open for OWNERSHIP is PRIVATE land, which is OPEN EQUALLY to both Arabs and Jews!!!
> [snapback]852276[/snapback]​


the facts are the creation in 1960 by Israeli Parleminent the Israel land laws that pertain to religion and ownership of land. and don't be tricked when it says "such lands are neither sold to arabs or jews..." because it also says "but instead were leased on a long-term basis for kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement" interesting loop hole that still prevents arabs from land


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Adding on to my previous post, change is hard but its possible. Look back at the U.S. hundred years ago blacks were slaves, hated, and force to declare they weren't not 100% human. Its the Islamic, Christian, and sometimes Jewish fundamentalists that cause the problems. Someone has to stand up and tell these Islamic haters to f*ck off.
> 
> Speaking of hatred, look at Germany 60 years ago.
> [snapback]852301[/snapback]​


the message would be more effective if when its being delivered there aren't pictures of the 100 000 iraqis killed in war or palestinian homes being razed. those pictures only make "terrorists" more popular


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> the facts are the creation in 1960 by Israeli Parleminent the Israel land laws that pertain to religion and ownership of land. and don't be tricked when it says "such lands are neither sold to arabs or jews..." because it also says "but instead were leased on a long-term basis for kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement" interesting loop hole that still prevents arabs from land
> [snapback]852304[/snapback]​


Yes, where as Palestinians don't need a "loophole" not to sell land to Jews - they'll just give the death penalty to whoever attempts to do so


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Whoah, derail alert! Land purchase in israel worthy of a separate thread?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> the message would be more effective if when its being delivered there aren't pictures of the 100 000 iraqis killed in war or palestinian homes being razed. those pictures only make "terrorists" more popular
> [snapback]852310[/snapback]​


Dude, how do you stop the situation then? Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to just stop their deep seeded hatred without some sort of aggressive aproach.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Yes, where as Palestinians don't need a "loophole" not to sell land to Jews - they'll just give the death penalty to whoever attempts to do so
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well bare in mind that there has never been a functioning palestinian government and such comments do not have the same weight as Legislation passed by israeli parliment and they should not be compared in same breath, that is misleading. So some powerless frustrated palestinian guy made an announcement he can never uphold...

If you want to hear these same arguments from a palestinian perspective I highly recommend Islamic Association for palestine" IAP.org" now the articles on israel's land laws are a little less favourable to israel than the American Article i sited previous but facts of laws passed by Israeli Parlement in 1960 regarding land and religion not disputed by either side. the interpretation of the law is desputed by lawyers and essayists everywhere


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Dude, how do you stop the situation then? Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to just stop their deep seeded hatred without some sort of aggressive aproach.
> [snapback]852322[/snapback]​


well there is much debate about this, I believe that aggression will only bring aggression in return. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacum. I personally think and I realize this is unusal but had the US spent the 200 billion , which is about 8 times Iraq's prewar GDP, if they spent that money to help the iraqis better their own lives as opposed to a war America would have gone a long way in defusing message of extremists. If you improve quality of life of palestinians, give them jobs, houses and a life they will not listen to extremists who want to destry israel.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Well how would we all make sure the population got the money instead of the Islamic fundamentalists? Since Islamic fundamentalists run the Arab countires it would be damn hard, and if the $200 billion free got in their hands..


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

lol american imperialism is an interesting subject, isn't it?

fact of the day: the u.s. knew japan was going to surrender but they didnt want to risk a few weeks because russia had their eyes on it. they used the bombs to scare off the russians.

way to set an example

*celebrates thankgiving day*

ROFL this iraq war = another genocide equivalent to what the native americans had happened to them

people need to stop reading the history and "facts" the media/gov't presents to us and open their eyes.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Done. There are three types of land in Israel. Government, JNF, and private
> Private land:
> And then finally JNF land, which is a small fraction of the land in Israel, and which was PURCHASED by PRIVATE parties to keep Israel, a world home for the Jews, open to Jews. It was then given to the government to control, but is still bound by the restrictions of the people who PURCHASED the land initially
> Finally, the conclusion of this part in the article YOU posted...
> ...


I really don't understand how I've nullified my own argument. when it says in your quote that exactly equal treatment of arabs and jews would be violation of 1960 law. and also your quote missing part that says "such lands are neither sold to arabs or jews **but instead were leased on a long-term basis for kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement". so it's not sold to arabs or jews but used for "forms of jewish settlements"

Now go to www.iap.org and let's discuss israel's land laws from the other side's point of view.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

syd said:


> lol american imperialism is an interesting subject, isn't it?
> fact of the day: the u.s. knew japan was going to surrender but they didnt want to risk a few weeks because russia had their eyes on it. they used the bombs to scare off the russians.
> way to set an example
> 
> ...


Whats your point? We stop listening to any government/media outlet? Yeah thats a great way to live a paranoid and conspiracy filled life.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

User said:


> Whats your point? We stop listening to any government/media outlet? Yeah thats a great way to live a paranoid and conspiracy filled life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's official - the only "outlet" I will listen to from now on is lunatics posting on fish sites


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Well how would we all make sure the population got the money instead of the Islamic fundamentalists? Since Islamic fundamentalists run the Arab countires it would be damn hard, and if the $200 billion free got in their hands..
> [snapback]852349[/snapback]​


the only country run by islamic fundementalists is Iran and formerly afghanistan. and that is a complex history once again intertwined with US policy and its support of the dictator Shah of Iran who was over thrown in 79 prior to hostage taking.. Shah was bad dude who made it illegal for women to wear veil, was super rich and treated people much as saddam treated Iraq...this is why the reaction in iran is so severe in other direction, most Arab regimes are pro western and not popular, like egypt, jordan, saudi arabia they R not fundementalist. Lebanon has a fundementalist party that is active in parlement Hezbollah. but I think basic aid for the poor, medical supplies, non military industrial equimpment with "gift from people of USA" is always more effective than bombing people, and cheaper. I think america as a whole spends too little time trying to understand the enemy and too much time dismissing analysis and looking for the short sound bite to sum up stuff...nothing is that simple. these people don't simply "hate freedom" not at all, there is much more to it.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Iran, Syria, Lebanon (which is totally control by Syria) Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, are all IMO Islamic fundamentalists states. There are other states/areas like Qatar, Egypt, Yemen, Omen, West Bank, Gaza, that broadcast anti-anything other than Islam.

Yes the US does support some of these states when it serves a purpose to wipe out a larger enemy - such as Iraq - Iran war. This has been done many times in the past like WW2 and so on.

Yes Islamic fundamentalists hate freedom because it threatens Islamic domination in society. There number one target is the USA since its one few that support Israel, and its base is Christians or in Bin Laden terms Crusaders. If Europe was as outgoing about Muslim hatred and supported Israel they would be attacked like crazy and they know it. Take the dutch film-maker as one example.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

so it comes down to paranoia vs. ignorance.

i rather be educated =)


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

syd said:


> so it comes down to paranoia vs. ignorance.
> i rather be educated =)
> [snapback]852586[/snapback]​


Whatever you want to do you know. Do you have any good conspiracy theories? I might not believe them, but there fun to listen too.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

no thanx im not going to waste my time. im not about aliens and presidents meeting with martians and nations causing earth quakes or even illuminati/free masons.

i belive in consipracy "theories" based on facts.

go ahead and belive that we are in iraq to spread democracy and to protect our freedom.

ROFL


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

People inform us all with "theories" based on facts.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

people inform you all ,but are you informed of all?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Well IMO, yes I'm informed, but you believe I'm informed?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Iran, Syria, Lebanon (which is totally control by Syria) Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, are all IMO Islamic fundamentalists states. There are other states/areas like Qatar, Egypt, Yemen, Omen, West Bank, Gaza, that broadcast anti-anything other than Islam.
> 
> Yes the US does support some of these states when it serves a purpose to wipe out a larger enemy - such as Iraq - Iran war. This has been done many times in the past like WW2 and so on.
> 
> ...


Oi, Syria is ruled by a Baathist regime, Lebanon has a ethnic power sharing deal where certain posts must be held at certain times by specific ethnic group, true syria has large military presence in lebanon but ths presence is officially welcome by lebanese government. Saudi Arabia is a monarcy that is probably the most hated regime by fundementalists. howeer saudi has large internal fundementalist elements at odds with government. Algeria held election and fundementalists won fair but election was nullified with international support, lybia is a dictatorship Qaddafi man you're totally off base, this "hating freedom " I'e never heard any statement by any muslim leader, terrorist,militant that could in any way be intrerpreted as that. In fact many have directly answered that question and clearly declared that they want freedom from american involment with and support of repressive governments and israeli occupation. Like bin laden said in recent speach there is a reason they did not attack sweden.

as for dutch film maker sad story, criminal act by one man has no representation on islam or muslims, jeffery dahmer isn't all americans. saddly that dutch guy must have obiously cared about muslim women to make his films to bad his killer could not see that


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Well if Syria is ruled by a Baathist regime and the Lebanese government supports the presence then what does they say about the Lebanese government?









Saudi Arabia maybe a monarcy, but the monarcy supports the tactics and the supressing of women rights, therefor they share the majority of ideas as the fundementalists. Lybia is a dictatorship true, but does it not support fundementalist tactics? I just made the comment about terrorists and freedom, Bin Laden doesn't attack Sweden because it has no religious influence that threats Islamic domination, and they don't support Israel. Sweden can be taken over internally through threats of voilence, much like Spain.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Well if Syria is ruled by a Baathist regime and the Lebanese government supports the presence then what does they say about the Lebanese government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what does lebanese acceptance of syria's baathism say about lebanon?? I don't know what does the united states arming of baathist saddam in war with iran say about usa?, not to mention that usa was also arming iran via iran contra. (america arms both sides of the same war) I guess lebanon feels safer from israel, who invaded lebanon in79 and 82 with syria there and unlike syria locals did not welcome israel.

saudi arabian monarchy may have some ideas that are shared by fundementalists but that hardly makes them fundementalist. Both Iran and USA believe in taxes, does that make them the same?

No Qaddaffi and his all-women entourage of body guards is not a Muslim fundementalist

bin laden doesn't attack sweden because sweden isn't supporting repressive regimes and is not , in the words of bin laden, killing muslims and stealing their resourses


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

Unfortunately it's inevitable. Once they said that they might do a preempt strike on the U.S. they leave us no choice.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> I don't know how anyone can possibly say we are 'losing' the war in Iraq. The Iraqi war has been AMAZING. Although sometimes falling below expectations, look at it relative to every single other war that has ever been fought. We have lost less than 2000 soliders, an AMAZINGLY low number. We took out the sitting government in a matter of months, and have already moved far in establishing a new police and military force and a democratic governement. US officials have very little involvement in, and are certainly not 'rigging' the election. The voting places will be monitored by Iraqi forces, with American men on high alert in surrounding areas. It's funny that with all we have accomplished, you have to resort to denying the legitimacy of the Iraqi run election. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 nevermind the guys too much of a dumbass...i wont waste any more time replying on his dumbass posts


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> what does lebanese acceptance of syria's baathism say about lebanon?? I don't know what does the united states arming of baathist saddam in war with iran say about usa?, not to mention that usa was also arming iran via iran contra. (america arms both sides of the same war) I guess lebanon feels safer from israel, who invaded lebanon in79 and 82 with syria there and unlike syria locals did not welcome israel.
> 
> saudi arabian monarchy may have some ideas that are shared by fundementalists but that hardly makes them fundementalist. Both Iran and USA believe in taxes, does that make them the same?
> 
> ...


Unfortunally I'm growing tired of the subject, I'll give it one more shot.









Post number #122 I stated



> Yes the US does support some of these states when it serves a purpose to wipe out a larger enemy - such as Iraq - Iran war. This has been done many times in the past like WW2 and so on.


On to the invasion, why did Israel invade Lebanon? It was a response to the Abu Nidal organization's assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov. Israel's objective was to push back the PLO militants to a distance of 40 kilometers to the north.

In 1982, the PLO withdrew most of its forces from Lebanon. With U.S. assistance, Israel and Lebanon reached an accord in May 1983 that set the stage to withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon. The instruments of ratification were never exchanged, however, and in March 1984, under pressure from Syria, Lebanon *canceled* the agreement. In June 1985, Israel withdrew most of its troops from Lebanon, leaving a small residual Israeli force and an Israeli-supported militia in southern Lebanon in a "security zone," which Israel considered a necessary buffer against attacks on its northern territory.

Israel finally wthdraw from the security zone in 2000. If Israel attacked Lebanon today Syrian forces would be destoryed just as in previous wars.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Not that pfury can figure this out on its own, but what's a potential solution? Is there one? Stating facts and opinions only goes so far, IMHO


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Well thats the sad part of the situation, knowone really knows. Its almost like a modern phenomenon, its seems like problem can't be solved without one side destorying the other. Everyone place there bets.

Thats one massive land grab. lol


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

acestro said:


> Not that pfury can figure this out on its own, but what's a potential solution? Is there one? Stating facts and opinions only goes so far, IMHO
> [snapback]852747[/snapback]​


Well in previous posts, there was never a real solution...all people could come up w/ were "ideal solutions" where we stop it at the root of the problem haha


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Holy sh*t, its amazing just look at the Arab nations compaired to the Jewish one.

Yet its still kicking.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

isreal is a nuclear threat. i say we dismantle their wmd's, but that won't happen for reasons im not getting into.

=)


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

syd said:


> isreal is a nuclear threat. i say we dismantle their wmd's, but that won't happen for reasons im not getting into.
> 
> =)
> [snapback]852826[/snapback]​


I'm all for *EVERY* nation giving up nukes, but that isn't going to happen until something more dangerous is invented.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

aaron07_20 said:


> nevermind the guys too much of a dumbass...i wont waste any more time replying on his dumbass posts
> [snapback]852722[/snapback]​


Hahaha, is that all you have left up your sleeve? Calling me a dumbass?


----------



## Roger (Nov 14, 2004)

I love political threads, the fights in them are always the best reads. so come on boys bush said he would f*ck your mothers, fight fight....


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Holy sh*t, its amazing just look at the Arab nations compaired to the Jewish one.
> 
> Yet its still kicking.
> 
> ...


bare in mind that arab countries are some 300 million and Israel is between 5-6 million. also bear in mind that USAID to israel amounts to more than average GDP per capita in arab countries=USA gives each israeli jew more than average arab makes in a year...not to mention military gifts, loan guarantees and unconditional support for Israel even at cost of US. Israel has deal with US that America must guarantee stable oil supply for israel even if it means depleating american supplies


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> bare in mind that arab countries are some 300 million and Israel is between 5-6 million. also bear in mind that USAID to israel amounts to more than average GDP per capita in arab countries=USA gives each israeli jew more than average arab makes in a year...not to mention military gifts, loan guarantees and unconditional support for Israel even at cost of US. Israel has deal with US that America must guarantee stable oil supply for israel even if it means depleating american supplies
> [snapback]852930[/snapback]​


I know all of that man, just didn't know about the oil supply deal. Do you have an article that I can read more about that? Also what would the US get in return from such a deal?


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Unfortunally I'm growing tired of the subject, I'll give it one more shot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


cross border terror attacks on Israel pre lebanon war was some 106 israeli dead. and israeli ambassador story is the official line...but Israel spent 20 years in lebanon and lost some 1000 soilders and killed anywhere from 17000 to 40000 lebanese depending on who you believe. I don't buy official line, since before creation of israel it was well known that israel intended to annex southern lebanon, create christian state in south of lebanon and push Muslims to the north. Israel saw assassination atempt as opportunity. It failed miserably, after 20 years israel left a far more dangerous "terror group" hezbollah then the one they went into to supposedly neutralize.

israel left lebanon unilaterally under fire without the security guarantees and concessions they had demanded throughout occupation. Hezbollah got almost all it wanted, there remains disputed sheeba farms region. if israel invaded again they would kill alot of civilians lose not as many soilders and gain nothing again


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Don't know if you feel the same, but I've got to break from this topic for a while its like f*cking clouding my thoughts. I'll probably dream about nuking the middle east tonight and wake up pissed.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> I know all of that man, just didn't know about the oil supply deal. Do you have an article that I can read more about that? Also what would the US get in return from such a deal?
> [snapback]852939[/snapback]​


what does the US get for anything it does for israel? besides pissing off most of the world. I suppose it satisfies the evangelist christian right within the united states who, to make a long story short, are trying to provoke war of armegeddon so jesus will come back...also it is very difficult to have a career in US government if you are not pro israeli, certainly it is a relationship that benefits israel as a whole far more than US, but individual US politicians who support israel are not rare. given that America has about 2.5% of population jewish , which by the way is about the same number of muslims, jews are much better represented in US government. one of most important lobby group in USA is AIPAC, the american israeli political action committee, check these guys out. these are some powerful dudes


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Don't know if you feel the same, but I've got to break from this topic for a while its like f*cking clouding my thoughts. I'll probably dream about nuking the middle east tonight and wake up pissed.
> [snapback]852949[/snapback]​


I hear ya dude, I'm exhausted, and didn't do a lick of work today. one last thing about that article as i go up and read I see some more misunderstanding.

I had said that israel had laws preventing the owner ship of land by non jews...someone said I was "pulling lies out of my ass" so I presented an american article by an american guy who defends these laws... thereby proving their existence to you in a most diplomatic way, which it seems you did not appreciate but no one questioned the existence of these laws anymore so i guess it worked. Now I'm fully aware that this article defends these laws, I just didn't think that you all would somehow understand this to be the only article or opinion on the subject. It was merely intended to prove that the laws exist from a source you wouldn't doubt, as for the interpretation of these laws...I personally found the argument in article weak enough to merit immediate suspicion and further sources. and there are plenty of good leads within the article. but the point is that article clearly proved that such notions were not "coming out of my ass" despite the particular interpretation of author...there are more interpretations I assure you.

PEACE!!!!


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I did enjoy the conversation, glad I was off work today. BTW I heard such laws are in existence, I didn't even read the article, but I will before I sign off.

Peace

Geez I'm making so many damn typeos today.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> I hear ya dude, I'm exhausted, and didn't do a lick of work today. one last thing about that article as i go up and read I see some more misunderstanding.
> 
> I had said that israel had laws preventing the owner ship of land by non jews...someone said I was "pulling lies out of my ass" so I presented an american article by an american guy who defends these laws... thereby proving their existence to you in a most diplomatic way, which it seems you did not appreciate but no one questioned the existence of these laws anymore so i guess it worked. Now I'm fully aware that this article defends these laws, I just didn't think that you all would somehow understand this to be the only article or opinion on the subject. It was merely intended to prove that the laws exist from a source you wouldn't doubt, as for the interpretation of these laws...I personally found the argument in article weak enough to merit immediate suspicion and further sources. and there are plenty of good leads within the article. but the point is that article clearly proved that such notions were not "coming out of my ass" despite the particular interpretation of author...there are more interpretations I assure you.
> PEACE!!!!
> [snapback]852977[/snapback]​


What you actually said was non-jews in Israel have no right to own or rent land, which is completely non-true - and the article you prvodied proved as much


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> what does the US get for anything it does for israel? besides pissing off most of the world. I suppose it satisfies the evangelist christian right within the united states who, to make a long story short, are trying to provoke war of armegeddon so jesus will come back...also it is very difficult to have a career in US government if you are not pro israeli, certainly it is a relationship that benefits israel as a whole far more than US, but individual US politicians who support israel are not rare. given that America has about 2.5% of population jewish , which by the way is about the same number of muslims, jews are much better represented in US government. one of most important lobby group in USA is AIPAC, the american israeli political action committee, check these guys out. these are some powerful dudes
> [snapback]852962[/snapback]​


has nothing to do with religious right, just as many democrats support Israel - why ? well, why wouldn't you ? Because they're fighting terrorists just like America. Only reason a nation would support Palestinians is so they could get oil breaks from other muslim countries sympathetic to their cause


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Now if what Jewlez said is true, I'm not even going to bother reading the article. Also Jewlez is right, Democrats support Isreal just like Republicans and other middle-minded people.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> has nothing to do with religious right, just as many democrats support Israel - why ? well, why wouldn't you ? Because they're fighting terrorists just like America. Only reason a nation would support Palestinians is so they could get oil breaks from other muslim countries sympathetic to their cause
> [snapback]853016[/snapback]​


Not at all true, why then does America so often stand alone in their support for israel in countless UN resolutions. how many times has US vetoed UN resolutions against Israel. The European Union, russia everybody else feels USA is Biased. in favour of israel but you think that the world is out of step with USA not the other way around? I would not support Israel, I support equal rights for all people regardless of their religion which is a notion opposite to the nature of the state of Israel. Where rights, political freedoms, immigration and citizenship is determined by whether a rabbi declares you sifficiently jewish or not.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

User said:


> Now if what Jewlez said is true, I'm not even going to bother reading the article. Also Jewlez is right, Democrats support Isreal just like Republicans and other middle-minded people.
> [snapback]853029[/snapback]​


I never said democrats or republicans the AIPAC covers all bases well, this phenonima of blind support for israel is a pan american thing that is not subject to one party...see Ralph Nader on this subject. I URGE you.

As for Artcile: premise of author is that Israel's land laws which clearly stated are to keep jewish lands for jews in fact sometimes discriminates in favor of arabs and israel has no intention to discriminate and this has served to fuel anti israeli propaganda..... there is huge logical error in argument because if that was true you gotta wonder why not just repeal the law?? but of course that's too logical. and there are plenty of quotes from those who disagree with author

I really wonder why you all are so eager to believe that israel is some kind of saint nation and so eager to refuse any statement of their wrong doing and that any hostility they face must be routed in insanity and has no basis.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> Not at all true, why then does America so often stand alone in their support for israel in countless UN resolutions. how many times has US vetoed UN resolutions against Israel. The European Union, russia everybody else feels USA is Biased. in favour of israel but you think that the world is out of step with USA not the other way around? I would not support Israel, I support equal rights for all people regardless of their religion which is a notion opposite to the nature of the state of Israel. Where rights, political freedoms, immigration and citizenship is determined by whether a rabbi declares you sifficiently jewish or not.
> [snapback]853736[/snapback]​


Yup, the world is out of step. Plenty of non-jewish people enjoy freedom in Israel and I know that for a fact - I've been there and going back this spring most likely. Israel is 10000 % more democratic than any of its muslim neighbors, who have EU in their pocket because of their oil. If you support equal right for all people regardless of religion, you must really start directing your outrage towards muslim countries in the middle east


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Yup, the world is out of step. Plenty of non-jewish people enjoy freedom in Israel and I know that for a fact - I've been there and going back this spring most likely. Israel is 10000 % more democratic than any of its muslim neighbors, who have EU in their pocket because of their oil. If you support equal right for all people regardless of religion, you must really start directing your outrage towards muslim countries in the middle east
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes much anger at many regimes in control of Muslim countries. Like saudi, Egyptian, jordan, really hate Kuwait and other oil rich arab governments, most of these govs are only in power with help of US government and they are there to repress the anti american and anti israeli and religious sentiments that are the true democratic nature of the people of theses countries, they just want their human rights and these governments are there to prevent it with just enough help from USAID to keep the people from rioting. If all arab muslim countries where democratic they would unite and all stand together against america and Israel, but they don't do that due to their corrupt self serving human right abusing governments that are in bed with USA. it is effective american/ israeli strategy , Divide and conquer. All arab states should be one province of One islamic nation from morroco to indonesia from yemen to afghanistan like the ottaman empire or previous islamic empires it will happen again just a matter of time.

When israel has a Non jewish Prime Minister or a president and laws that prevent non jews from holding important government posts are removed...and when anybody can immigrate to israel regardless of religion....I'll beleive you. but as it stands now if you are jew living in america israel will pay you to move to west bank, if you are arab living in the west bank israel wants you out! so you saw a lot of foreign laborers in israel did ya? Lota russian hookers i hear.

Just saw report last night about how israel taxes the crap out of arab business in jerusalem so they fold and leave and then space given to jews... they showed this little arab tourist shack that was being charged 2 million $ tax fee by israeli gov which it could not pay and had to close. and of course the arab had no recourse to any arbitrator.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> Yes much anger at many regimes in control of Muslim countries. Like saudi, Egyptian, jordan, really hate Kuwait and other oil rich arab governments, most of these govs are only in power with help of US government and they are there to repress the anti american and anti israeli and religious sentiments that are the true democratic nature of the people of theses countries, they just want their human rights and these governments are there to prevent it with just enough help from USAID to keep the people from rioting. If all arab muslim countries where democratic they would unite and all stand together against america and Israel, but they don't do that due to their corrupt self serving human right abusing governments that are in bed with USA. it is effective american/ israeli strategy , Divide and conquer. All arab states should be one province of One islamic nation from morroco to indonesia from yemen to afghanistan like the ottaman empire or previous islamic empires it will happen again just a matter of time.
> 
> When israel has a Non jewish Prime Minister or a president and laws that prevent non jews from holding important government posts are removed...and when anybody can immigrate to israel regardless of religion....I'll beleive you. but as it stands now if you are jew living in america israel will pay you to move to west bank, if you are arab living in the west bank israel wants you out! so you saw a lot of foreign laborers in israel did ya? Lota russian hookers i hear.
> 
> ...


The things you are talking about are extremely minor and if true, are only a fraction of the injustices that go on in muslim countries. And btw, Muslim states did unite against Israel a few times to try to erase it of the face of the earth .. didn't go so well for them, did it ?







and stop pretending like any Arab countries give a damn about Palestinians, they won't offer them help, they'd rather just use them as a crutch in their anti-Israeli agenda - peace is their worst nightmare


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> The things you are talking about are extremely minor and if true, are only a fraction of the injustices that go on in muslim countries. And btw, Muslim states did unite against Israel a few times to try to erase it of the face of the earth .. didn't go so well for them, did it ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point is that these abuses are being carried out by pro American Governments that are not representative of the people. The most grevious crimes by these governments tends to be their repression and tactics against muslim fundementalists. And not since the creation of the modern arab states after ww1 has there ever been representative arab government. And the only coalitions that united against Israel have been coalitions of corrupt Arab governments a la 1967... and they got their asses kicked by much superior Israeli Defense Forces. But one grass roots Islamic organization that is representative of the people did take on Israel, Hezbollah in lebanon. and if America lost in Vietnam, Israel got its ass kicked in Lebanon. It's very similar scenario except Hezbollah did not have backing of China and USSR all they had was their suicide bombing faith and it was enough to make Israel bleed badly and withdraw under fire without concessions and security guarantees they demanded, this senario is very comparable to iraq today. Hezbollah got almost all they wanted except sheeba farms&#8230;but they'll get that too soon enough.

hezbollah , the one representative muslim arab party, has offered palestinians plenty of help. or so the israeli army claims that they are actually fighting in territories with them and smuggling arms . Iran a non arab muslim country is very supportive of palestine , like I said the arab govermnets that are not supportive of palestine are the ones getting the biggest USAID checks like Egypt, Jordan, and of course the saudi's royal family who are practically member of the Bush family according to Micheal Moore. But I assure you the arab muslim people care a lot as evident by their news stations like al jazzeera and al arabia and expression and that is why governments pay it a lot of lip service, but their loyalties are to their American keepers...this is why islamic fundementalism is on the rise, because it is uncorruptable by US and israel. These guys don't care about money, power or sex so they can't be bribed


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faes...ah-be-next.html


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Hezbollah is a terrorist organization
> 
> http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faes...ah-be-next.html
> [snapback]853918[/snapback]​


I'm very well aware of the US State Department declaration and like minded opinions that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Canada does not subscribe to same policy. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But Objectively there is no way that a grass roots movement whos primary targets is Israeli (foreign) soilders who were occupying their land ( lebanon) in violation of UN resolutions can be accused of being a terrorist group. Hezbollah is about as much a terror group as George Washington was terrorist. even less so because hezbollah's claim on land much more solid than George Washington's. In America any body who defends themselves against American or israeli aggression is a Terrorist. If Palestinians attack Israeli Military outpost that is built in Violation of UN resolution 242 on palestinian lands it is considered terror attack . when israel fires missile into crowded palestinian civilian areas it is called self defence. it is not hard to argue that in fact it is the other way around.that Israel is the terrorist and the palestinians are just defending themselves. I know you don;t agree but logically the argument can bee made.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> I'm very well aware of the US State Department declaration and like minded opinions that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Canada does not subscribe to same policy. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But Objectively there is no way that a grass roots movement whos primary targets is Israeli (foreign) soilders who were occupying their land ( lebanon) in violation of UN resolutions can be accused of being a terrorist group. Hezbollah is about as much a terror group as George Washington was terrorist. even less so because hezbollah's claim on land much more solid than George Washington's. In America any body who defends themselves against American or israeli aggression is a Terrorist. If Palestinians attack Israeli Military outpost that is built in Violation of UN resolution 242 on palestinian lands it is considered terror attack . when israel fires missile into crowded palestinian civilian areas it is called self defence. it is not hard to argue that in fact it is the other way around.that Israel is the terrorist and the palestinians are just defending themselves. I know you don;t agree but logically the argument can bee made.
> [snapback]853981[/snapback]​


http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group?

Yes. Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against America, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

a series of kidnappings of Westerners, including several Americans, in the 1980s; 
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983; 
the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head; 
and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina-the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing 95).


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> I'm very well aware of the US State Department declaration and like minded opinions that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Canada does not subscribe to same policy.[snapback]853981[/snapback]​


Wrong !

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/11/hezbollah021211


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Wrong !
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/11/hezbollah021211
> [snapback]853993[/snapback]​


dude , I don't have time to read article now but I know my stuff, Canada makes distinction between military and political divisions of hezbollah, USA does not, USA lumps all divisions as terror group, this is policy that canada does not subscribe too


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mypiranhas said:


> dude , I don't have time to read article now but I know my stuff, Canada makes distinction between military and political divisions of hezbollah, USA does not, USA lumps all divisions as terror group, this is policy that canada does not subscribe too
> [snapback]854002[/snapback]​


OK, let me quote -



> OTTAWA - *Ottawa has outlawed both the military and social wings of Hezbollah* - an abrupt about-face for the foreign affairs minister, who has argued the social arm of the organization is a legitimate charity.
> 
> The decision comes following weeks of intense lobbying by the Canadian Alliance and Jewish groups.
> *Ottawa placed the Lebanese-based group's military and social wings on its list of banned terrorist entities. That means both are now listed in Canada under a UN resolution allowing countries to seize the assets of terrorist groups*.


----------



## mypiranhas (Dec 28, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> OK, let me quote -
> [snapback]854007[/snapback]​


OOOPS I'm big enough to admit when i'm wrong. i did not realize there was a change in Canada's policy. I'm surprised I've not heard about it from the activist groups yet, it will not stand. However I hardly think that the success of these Jewish groups to change Canada's policy represents and objective assessment of the situation. So now Canada is as wrong as the US on this matter. 
But It seems I was not current regarding this fact. thank you.


----------

