It's funny you blame me of ignoring claims yet you constantly choose to exclude the most relevant, strongest points I make and always include the less relevent side points that branch off of those main points. If this continues, I think I just might have to start taking wins on the points that aren't responded to.

Quote :

"Iran's repeated and violent statements and actions against the United States, Israel, Britain, and others."

The only violent action you've noted was commited by Iranian students and not the government, as noted Embassies are property of their home nation. Its not Iran's fault the embassy wasn't properly secured.

Quote :

"Going around the world trying to force other people to be like them is exactly what global terrorist networks do."

orly? Terrorists are going around spreading islam and installing governments of theocracy? I didn't know that.

Quote :

"How do you figure? We're pretty high on the list of global nuclear targets. Many if not most of the world's terrorist groups would like to use one on us. Though China has every motivation to be friendly now and in the near future, as you say, that may (and probably will) change at some point in the future, during which time it will only become more capable. Russia has a bigger stockpile than us, though you seem happy to ignore their role in this whole thing."

What does people wanting to use one on us have to do with our need for them? We need to defend against them but last time I checked, nuclear weapons don't cancel out. We woulnd't have to worry about this kind of thing if we didn't go around blindly aiding terrorists, coops and fraudulent nations all the time now would we? We could reverse our policies today and tomorrow nobody would hate us. As for China, we have enough non nuclear weapons to EASILY defend ourselves against anyone.

Quote :

"You know how the Palestinians keep losing so much of their land? They keep starting fights and losing them."

I guess the Palestinians somehow orchestrated the holocaust.

Quote :

"the last time anyone aggressively went in and took Palestinian land was when the Ottomans took it over."

The Ottomans hardly took over. They passively took over unlike the Israeli's who not only came in (which would've been wrong but acceptable) they forced the palestinians out and installed their own religious state. They are the epitome of Aggressiveness.

Quote :

"So why are you ranting so much about how terrible Israel is and ignoring, say, Argentina, which even this century endorsed wholesale oppression and slaughter of its native peoples?"

If I lived in the 16 and 1700s or natives were in a live conflict with the US then maybe I would be all over that. This is just 60 years ago and the resulting conflict is still very much alive and needs to be resolved. I'm not suggesting anyone leave or be forced back where they came from but Israel definitely needs to cease existence to a certain degree and some rezoning done to the area.

Quote :

"It's a big part of the reason we leave North Korea alone"

That and the fact that they have no resources of our major interest and we don't happen to be harboring a fraudulent offender in the region.

Quote :

"Iraq had a poorly trained army with little discipline and terrible leadership. Size matters, but the rest matters more."

Iraq had, by far, the most experienced military in the world.

Quote :

"Yes, it is your job. You made it your job when you decided that you wanted to post in the Soap Box. So far, every element of your posting has been unsubstantiated by logic or evidence."

So I don't have a reasonable right to expect the users have a decent unbiased knowledge of current events? I have to spoon feed you through every debate?

Quote :

"We've already covered that Britain is imperialist."

Britain imperilist->britain "had" the land->lead the way in creating Israel with land acquired through imperialism+Europeans moved into area and took over=Israel is the direct result of imperialism.

7/24/2008 2:25:13 PM

no, my friend, Israel is the direct result of persecution.

7/24/2008 5:16:02 PM

Quote :

"The only violent action you've noted was commited by Iranian students and not the government, as noted Embassies are property of their home nation. Its not Iran's fault the embassy wasn't properly secured."

Well, for one thing, I said violent statements, not actions. And while the Iranian government arguably doesn't have a specific duty as defined by international law to protect our embassies for us, they do have every obligation not to aid and abet the attackers, not to support their occupation, and not to participate in the occupation themselves.

You can keep up with this bullshit of "it was only students," we all know you're using a major cop-out. The Iranian government was complicit in virtually every part of the operation.

Quote :

"Terrorists are going around spreading islam and installing governments of theocracy? I didn't know that. "

Not all global terrorist networks are Muslim, but we'll move on from that.

It's not just an issue of "spreading Islam." However, it is frequently an issue of spreading a certain ideology within that religion. Al Qaeda and others launch attacks in many Muslim countries as punitive strikes for various differences they have. The government is too secular, it's the wrong branch of Islam, it is perceived to have betrayed its branch of Islam...you name it.

Quote :

"What does people wanting to use one on us have to do with our need for them? We need to defend against them but last time I checked, nuclear weapons don't cancel out."

Last time I checked, you were suggesting that Iran needed nuclear weapons as a deterrent. But for us to have them as a deterrent -- that's just silly.

The most sensible reason for us to have a nuclear arsenal is to perpetuate the concept of mutually assured destruction, which served us well in the Cold War and could certainly keep everybody on their best behavior if we got into another series of unpleasantries with China or Russia.

Quote :

"We woulnd't have to worry about this kind of thing if we didn't go around blindly aiding terrorists, coops and fraudulent nations all the time now would we? We could reverse our policies today and tomorrow nobody would hate us."

Your understanding of the world is incredibly simplistic and fails to involve many of the motivations for anti-American sentiment around the world. There's our "cultural imperialism," for one, which I suppose we could back off on if we wanted to go completely broke. Our influence through movies, music, television, books, the internet, etc. is widely resented in many parts of the world, particularly very conservative ones, and it also represents a very large part of income from exports.

Then there's the fact that at this point anti-American sentiment has become an institutional aspect of many of our enemy countries and organizations. Without a big bad American bad guy, these institutions run the risk of collapse. Their leaders will not allow for that, because their ultimate motivation is to retain power. As a result, they may change the exact reasons why they hate us -- or they may not. They may just outright lie. It's been done plenty across the world, particularly in the Middle East. When Israel isn't being "evil" enough, you get newspaper articles about how Yom Kippur involves the sacrifice of Egyptian children.

Quote :

"As for China, we have enough non nuclear weapons to EASILY defend ourselves against anyone."

Against anyone's conventional weapons, certainly. Our nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent to other people's nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"I guess the Palestinians somehow orchestrated the holocaust. "

I said "so much" rather than "all" for precisely that reason. Yes, they lost land because of the United Nations partition plan. You know where something similar happened? India/Pakistan. It got partitioned, and there was some violence, and there's been sporadic fighting since then. But for the most part, the displaced populations moved to their new countries and dealt with it. I suppose Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh are all completely fraudulent, illegitimate nations, too.

Quote :

"The Ottomans hardly took over."

The Ottomans conquered Palestine through military engagements twice, from the Mamluks in 1516 and from the Egyptians in 1841. Both times they dissolved it as an administrative entity so that the Palestinians themselves had no authority over their own region.

Quote :

"the Israeli's who not only came in (which would've been wrong but acceptable) they forced the palestinians out and installed their own religious state."

So now it's wrong for the Jews to even move to Palestine? And again, the opportunity existed for two separate states to exist on equal footing in terms of territory.

Quote :

"This is just 60 years ago and the resulting conflict is still very much alive and needs to be resolved."

Most of the nations of Africa were created more recently than Israel and many if not most of them have ongoing conflicts stemming from that process to this day. Where's the ire about that?

Quote :

"I'm not suggesting anyone leave or be forced back where they came from but Israel definitely needs to cease existence to a certain degree and some rezoning done to the area."

Ah, so now the "two wrongs make a right" school of international politics: The Jews took Palestine's country (which hadn't existed for more than two thousand years, and which, when it did exist, was a Jewish kingdom), so now we're going to take away the Jews' state.

Then we'll have a large angry population of Jews to deal with, and you may rest assured that they are better at terrorism than the Palestinians.

Quote :

"That and the fact that they have no resources of our major interest and we don't happen to be harboring a fraudulent offender in the region."

Ah, but by the North Korean mindset we did exactly that by defending, helping to establish, and continuing to maintain a military presence south of the DMZ. It's practically like having US troops all over Israel to fend off the Arabs.

I'll grant that it's no doubt a factor that North Korea isn't brimming with resources, but it makes up for that by being an established threat.

Quote :

"Iraq had, by far, the most experienced military in the world."

By what possible standard? The last time Iraq had participated in any kind of serious war before Iran was 1949 with the independence of Israel. Since then it had been involved in two more Israeli wars (one lasting six days and one lasting twenty, through Iraq participated in very little of the latter because of strained relations with Syria).

They gained experience in the Iranian war, but that doesn't work out to "discipline" and "good leadership." The Iraqis had neither.

Quote :

"So I don't have a reasonable right to expect the users have a decent unbiased knowledge of current events? I have to spoon feed you through every debate?"

No, you have to present support for your points when they are challenged, and accept that the sources you use may themselves be the subject of discussions regarding bias, quality, etc. "Spoon feeding" me would imply that every time you provided a source I would say, "Oh, wow, I did not know that, thank you for enlightening me." No. That is not why I want to see what you have to present. I want to see it so that:

a) I can see whether any support actually exists outside of your own mind
b) If it does, whether or not it is viable
c) If it is not, to attack its viability and therefore the basis for your entire argument
d) If it is, to incorporate new information into my own position

It is increasingly apparent that you have a remarkably unwarranted high opinion of yourself. Because I do not agree with you, I have no "decent unbiased knowledge of current events;" apparently, your sources are so utterly convincing that no sane person who encountered them could possibly degree. This thinking is manifest in every part of your statement and most of your argument. If they are so great and good, you are doing the world a disservice by hoarding them. If they are not, then someone needs to point that out to you, though admittedly at the risk of expanding the undersized bit of gray jello you have the audacity to call a "mind."

I would be ecstatic if you could just name a couple of publications and give me just enough detail for me to be able to find any of the numerous and profound articles you repeatedly claim to have read.

For my part I can point directly to Doctors Khater and Moog, NC State professors of Middle Eastern and South Asian history, respectively. Virtually everything I have argued here comes from their classes and other online information I can provide in short order. This in contrast with you, whose sole bit of outside information so far is a map taken from a website that rants about an illuminati conspiracy in the White House.

Quote :

"Israel is the direct result of imperialism."

I'll grant that, though it could be argued.

That notwithstanding:

Israel being the direct result of imperialism =/= Israel being imperialistic

Not if you want to use the language properly, anyway, but given your numerous atrocities against it throughout this thread I suppose I shouldn't even bother hoping.

7/24/2008 5:17:46 PM

Palestine is the direct result of Imperialism.

7/24/2008 7:30:36 PM

The U.S. is the direct result of Imperialism.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 10:20:20 PM

Every county in the world is a direct result of imperialism.

7/24/2008 10:25:22 PM

7/24/2008 10:26:12 PM

Quote :

"Well, for one thing, I said violent statements"

As stated, those statements are taken out of context and completely non-violent political statements.

Quote :

"they do have every obligation not to aid and abet the attackers, not to support their occupation, and not to participate in the occupation themselves"

as does the cia/reagan campaign.

Quote :

"However, it is frequently an issue of spreading a certain ideology within that religion.Al Qaeda and others launch attacks in many Muslim countries as punitive strikes for various differences they have. The government is too secular, it's the wrong branch of Islam, it is perceived to have betrayed its branch of Islam...you name it."

Well its a good thing we're nowhere near that region and not an islamic nation.

Quote :

"Last time I checked, you were suggesting that Iran needed nuclear weapons as a deterrent. But for us to have them as a deterrent -- that's just silly."

It is, listen to yourself. If you think anyone could invade/occupy the US if we didn't have nuclear weapons you are silly. Also, if you think nuclear weapons are defense against nuclear weapons you are also silly because there are so many more options to destroy tactical areas other than nuclear and if its not tactical then its just pure evil trying to kill civilians anyway. You said it, I believe. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote :

"the concept of mutually assured destruction, which served us well in the Cold War"

O thats just great. Fucking great. I can sleep at night knowing I have the peace of mind that if I'm wiped out by a nuke. millions more will die and the entire world will be risked as well! thats just great!

You know the cold war we were a sneeze and a dead bird away from ending it all? have we learned nothing?

Quote :

"Their leaders will not allow for that, because their ultimate motivation is to retain power. As a result, they may change the exact reasons why they hate us -- or they may not. They may just outright lie. It's been done plenty across the world, particularly in the Middle East. When Israel isn't being "evil" enough, you get newspaper articles about how Yom Kippur involves the sacrifice of Egyptian children."

None of that would last if we weren't backing it up by actually BEING EVIL. Before we were dabbling they could care less about us.

Quote :

"I said "so much" rather than "all" for precisely that reason. Yes, they lost land because of the United Nations partition plan. You know where something similar happened? India/Pakistan. It got partitioned, and there was some violence, and there's been sporadic fighting since then. But for the most part, the displaced populations moved to their new countries and dealt with it. I suppose Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh are all completely fraudulent, illegitimate nations, too. "

First of all there is still a dispute of kashmir. Theres a fundamental difference anyway. Those were actual splits of one nation while this was giving a severely disproportionate amount of land to one group to settle it with immigrants primarily from europe because somebody was mean to them back in europe and they wanted their own country.

Quote :

". Where's the ire about that?"

Wheres the trillions of dollars in us support of a non-native african country sucking this nation dry for nothing in return.

Quote :

"Then we'll have a large angry population of Jews to deal with, and you may rest assured that they are better at terrorism than the Palestinians."

Fine then. But if we are not going to fix our atrocities lets at the very least cease committing them, get out and give no aide to anyone in the region.

Quote :

"Ah, but by the North Korean mindset we did exactly that by defending, helping to establish, and continuing to maintain a military presence south of the DMZ. It's practically like having US troops all over Israel to fend off the Arabs."

Did south Korea bring in a random group of people from another continent and take most of the land, all the good land and bulldoze homes etc of natives. Don't think so. Quit trying to bring in analogies because this is a unique situation.

Quote :

"By what possible standard? The last time Iraq had participated in any kind of serious war before Iran was 1949 with the independence of Israel. Since then it had been involved in two more Israeli wars (one lasting six days and one lasting twenty, through Iraq participated in very little of the latter because of strained relations with Syria). They gained experience in the Iranian war, but that doesn't work out to "discipline" and "good leadership." The Iraqis had neither."

I'm talking about when they faced us this last time around

Quote :

""Spoon feeding" me would imply that every time you provided a source I would say, "Oh, wow, I did not know that, thank you for enlightening me.""

Then you would just act as if you knew it all along but since I'm not spoon feeding you, you're stuck and frustrated. I know your internet game.

Quote :

"b) If it does, whether or not it is viable c) If it is not, to attack its viability and therefore the basis for your entire argument"

Nobody wants to waste their time with you arguing the viability of a source because everybody already knows anybody that says anything against Israel is just an anti-semite thus completely un credible.

Quote :

"Because I do not agree with you, I have no "decent unbiased knowledge of current events;" apparently, your sources are so utterly convincing that no sane person who encountered them could possibly degree."

You don't have to agree with me but you had no idea many of the events I have referred to had ever taken place (October surprise for example). You don't have to agree with it or even believe it is completely true but you should at least know the claim existed and was at the very least, debatable but it just goes to show that you only drive your car down one highway. Sure you drive in different lanes, and take different exits from time to time but at the end of the day, you drive on one highway.

Quote :

"I would be ecstatic if you could just name a couple of publications and give me just enough detail for me to be able to find any of the numerous and profound articles you repeatedly claim to have read."

I've given you a publication but most of the information I have read was a year ago when I was writing a friends thesis on the topic and 2 years ago when they invaded a peaceful, sovereign country. Again, I apologize for not saving every single thing I read for the case that one day I might run itno someone who has never ventured outside the fox news network. You also have google. You can google my poitns. Why should I have to research something I've already written thesises on and have full knowledge of? You want me to do your work for you.

Quote :

"For my part I can point directly to Doctors Khater and Moog, NC State professors of Middle Eastern and South Asian history, respectively. Virtually everything I have argued here comes from their classes and other online information I can provide in short order. This in contrast with you, whose sole bit of outside information so far is a map taken from a website that rants about an illuminati conspiracy in the White House."

Haha great! Why didn't you tell me this from the get go? All this time I've been arguing with a guy that is unable to formulate his own opinion and got all his information from professors teaching a class at a conservative university in none other than THE UNITED STATES. The jokes on me.

I took a guy name la vopa at ncsu o'mahaney at dublin and williams formerly of um all of whom had the guts to take a non biased approach to the situation so that students who didn't previously experience fox news brainwashing could formulate their own opinions, and given the straight and overwhelming facts it was hard at first to see why this was even issue. My freshman year at ncsu I went in thinking man theres no way to tell who is right who is wrong in this conflict because it is just so difficult...then I was given the facts. Three courses and several hundred articles later, I am here.

But its tough because any professional in America or Europe that so much as blinks an eye at Zionist perfection will be black balled an ZOMGantiSemite and risk their reputation, job...life.

Quote :

"The U.S. is the direct result of Imperialism."

Damn right and if I was a member of a country paying trillions to protect the us against native Americans in the 1700s I would be on the same santa maria.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 12:05 AM. Reason : not gonna babysit people on the internet]

7/25/2008 12:02:36 AM

Quote :

"As stated, those statements are taken out of context"

It was stated that precisely one statement was taken out of context. It was not the only statement, nor is it a foregone conclusion that the claim is correct.

Quote :

"as does the cia/reagan campaign."

Most of the CIA agents involved in Ajax are dead and most, if not all, are retired. Reagan hasn't been president for twenty years and is dead besides. His regime and that of his particular political persuasion is long gone. I cannot say the same for Iran. The current Leader was a participant in the revolution who had his own role in the events.

Quote :

"Well its a good thing we're nowhere near that region and not an islamic nation."

They may not be in a tearing hurry to convert us to their precise point of view, but they are willing to use violence against us to get us to conform to their will.

Quote :

"If you think anyone could invade/occupy the US if we didn't have nuclear weapons you are silly."

I never said anything of the sort. However it is apparent that you did at least kind of read what I said:

Quote :

"Also, if you think nuclear weapons are defense against nuclear weapons you are also silly because there are so many more options to destroy tactical areas other than nuclear and if its not tactical then its just pure evil trying to kill civilians anyway."

I don't see you anywhere near so protective of Israeli citizens, but we'll ignore that for the time being. The point of nuclear deterrence is precisely that you don't ever have to use nuclear weapons. When the deterrent works neither side will use their arsenal because they know a reprisal will follow. That's the thought process that managed to get us through the Cold War largely unscathed. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, the threat of one wrong prevents another from ever happening.

Quote :

"I can sleep at night knowing I have the peace of mind that if I'm wiped out by a nuke. millions more will die and the entire world will be risked as well! thats just great!"

The point isn't to make you sleep better. It's to make both sides substantially less likely to do anything stupid. If you're too much of an ignoramus to recognize that, you can sleep just as unsoundly as you please.

Quote :

"None of that would last if we weren't backing it up by actually BEING EVIL."

Again, woefully optimistic. Hatreds don't go away overnight -- you can see that all over the world.

Quote :

"Before we were dabbling they could care less about us."

The Tripolitan Wars. Read about them.

Quote :

"First of all there is still a dispute of kashmir."

Yeah, so? They've still managed to handle it better, proportionally speaking.

Quote :

"Those were actual splits of one nation while this was giving a severely disproportionate amount of land to one group to settle it with immigrants primarily from europe because somebody was mean to them back in europe and they wanted their own country."

There was a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine at the time. The Muslim population in India/Pakistan wasn't indigenous, either, though it came about longer ago than the Jewish resettlement of Palestine. Tell me, exactly what is the cut-off here? How long does a population have to be in a territory before they claim some right to it?

Quote :

"Wheres the trillions of dollars in us support of a non-native african country sucking this nation dry for nothing in return."

What the fuck kind of question is this? What is a "non-native african country?" Are you aware of an African country predominantly full of white people?

Besides, a large portion of our aid to Israel does in fact bear returns. I'll point out that the second largest recipient of US aid is Egypt, closely following Israel. Do you know what that is? It's because we offered both countries substantial aid packages in order to get a peace agreement between them. What is it we get from Egypt, exactly? Pictures of the Sphinx?

Quote :

"But if we are not going to fix our atrocities lets at the very least cease committing them"

What atrocities are we committing? I've heard you rail about them, but I haven't seen much evidence of their existence.

Quote :

"Did south Korea bring in a random group of people from another continent and take most of the land, all the good land and bulldoze homes etc of natives."

No, they brought in a random group of people (the UN, which is about as fucking random as it gets) to bomb the shit out of the North and subsequently blockade it to the point where it is starving to death.

Quote :

"I'm talking about when they faced us this last time around"

How were they more experienced than us? We were involved in far more military operations than they were from the end of the Iran-Iraq war up until 2003. Somalia (excellent practice), former Yugoslavia, Haiti, etc. Iraq was involved in...not much. And most of their "experience" in the first Gulf War entailed getting killed by things they couldn't see, in addition to surrendering.

Quote :

"Then you would just act as if you knew it all along but since I'm not spoon feeding you, you're stuck and frustrated. I know your internet game."

What?

Let me see if I follow this:

If you provide me with your sources, I will claim to have known them all along. If that is the case, I must either be claiming to:

a) Have already encountered your sources and disregarded them as being completely and wholly unreliable, or
b) Have already encountered your sources, regarded them as being reliable, and therefore have based my entire set of arguments here counter to the evidence I have seen because...I wanted to play an elaborate joke?

If it's (a), then I'm afraid the whole point is that you need to defend the quality of your information. If it's (b), then you're crazier than a shithouse bat.

Quote :

"Nobody wants to waste their time with you arguing the viability of a source because everybody already knows anybody that says anything against Israel is just an anti-semite thus completely un credible."

I'm afraid a great many people on here are willing to argue the validity of their sources because they'd like to be taken seriously and not treated as punching bag for posters of what is by now self-evidently superior skill. And saying things against Israel is not immediately regarded as anti-semitic; in fact, if I may skip ahead briefly to another of your comments:

Quote :

"Haha great! Why didn't you tell me this from the get go? All this time I've been arguing with a guy that is unable to formulate his own opinion and got all his information from professors teaching a class at a conservative university in none other than THE UNITED STATES./quote] Dr. Khater is Lebanese, and if you're familiar with their involvement of the situation you will understand that this gives him no great love of Israel. He was always very professional, however, and though he allowed that he may have a bias against them he did his very best not to let it color his teaching. Neither he nor Dr. Moog came across as being remotely conservative by any standard, and both of them were more than willing to describe the negative role of America and Israel in creating the current Middle Eastern situation. [quote]You don't have to agree with me but you had no idea many of the events I have referred to had ever taken place (October surprise for example)."

I did know what the October surprise was. I denied that you represented it fairly or correctly. Again, I was a political science major who did fairly well. These things have come across my path long before you came along to regurgitate a barely-digested interpretation of them.

Quote :

"I've given you a publication but most of the information I have read was a year ago when I was writing a friends thesis on the topic and 2 years ago when they invaded a peaceful, sovereign country."

I suppose we're to take your word for it, vague as it may be? And what kind of moron must your supposed friend be if he asked you to write a thesis? You can barely put a sentence together. I'm drunk as a red Indian and I'm more coherent than you. I can compile a list of horrific errors on your part in spelling, grammar, and syntax if you'd like.

Quote :

"Again, I apologize for not saving every single thing I read for the case that one day I might run itno someone who has never ventured outside the fox news network."

I do not now, nor have I ever, watched Fox news. Generally I don't watch television news at all, although when I remember to I catch the BBC World News on BBCAM, and in general listen to NPR when I'm in the car. You'll recall how all of these are known for being neoconservative propaganda machines.

Quote :

"You also have google. You can google my poitns."

Indeed I can google them and have tried to, and I've seen no evidence anywhere of:

1) Iran having 10 million fighters of any kind
2) The possibility of an Iranian stealth army
3) Handheld antitank weapons that could cripple US armored units
4) Any possibility of successful US attack against US troop positions in Iraq or Afghanistan (that'd be brilliant, by the way, sending "10 million" fighters west when we have a sizeable, multinational military force on their eastern border)

Among others.

Quote :

"Why should I have to research something I've already written thesises on and have full knowledge of?"

This comment just melted my brain with a combination of incredulity, dismay, and hysterical laughter.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 3:34 AM. Reason : It's pretty impressive also that at the ripe old age of 21 you're writing theses]

7/25/2008 3:33:00 AM

I just spent the entire summer at Hebrew University @ Mt. Scopus in Jerusalem, and at the University of Haifa studying International Law and the State of Israel.

and, with the exception of quips and potshots, I'm staying out of this because there's no use arguing with someone like wethebest.

He's weaving truths, half-truths, and straight up falsities in order to come to the conclusion that Israel is wrong, Israel is the bad guy, and Israel doesn't have the rights that a sovereign nation should, thus deserves no support from anyone.

It's borderline Nazism, or at the very best Ahmadinejadistic.

7/25/2008 9:02:21 AM

real talk means serious business



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Conflict_with_Zionism
So basically they terrorized the British until they submitted into giving them whatever they wanted. Gaining land through terrorism is a whole level worse than imperialism. Israel may not be imperialist after all. They could accurately be referred to as a terrorist state but either way they are straight up evil.

Quote :

"It was stated that precisely one statement was taken out of context. It was not the only statement, nor is it a foregone conclusion that the claim is correct. "

They don't want to wipe anybody off the map they just want some form of justice. Just as we made statements when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Quote :

"but they are willing to use violence against us to get us to conform to their will. "

Conform simply means stop funding their blood. Why not just conform?

Quote :

"I don't see you anywhere near so protective of Israeli citizens, but we'll ignore that for the time being. The point of nuclear deterrence is precisely that you don't ever have to use nuclear weapons. When the deterrent works neither side will use their arsenal because they know a reprisal will follow. That's the thought process that managed to get us through the Cold War largely unscathed. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, the threat of one wrong prevents another from ever happening."

I don't know why you keep referring to the cold war as "unscathed" when we were a flukish feather away from nuclear apocalypse. Its like you go and look for the worst example/analogy possible.

Quote :

" Again, woefully optimistic. Hatreds don't go away overnight -- you can see that all over the world."

you're right. just look at us and britain.

Quote :

"Tripolitan Wars"

coincidental, wrong place wrong time, undiscriminating piracy, irrelevant

Quote :

"Yeah, so? They've still managed to handle it better, proportionally speaking."

Because its more of a dispute and not just one side taking everything then calling peace as if nothing ever happened.

Quote :

"There was a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine at the time. "

A great amount of which came as illegal immigrants or terrorists before Britain finally gave in (only because money was low) and gave them someone elses land just to get them off their neck.

Quote :

"What the fuck kind of question is this? What is a "non-native african country?" Are you aware of an African country predominantly full of white people?"

I'm glad you found my point. You might not realize you found it, but you definately found it.

Quote :

"Besides, a large portion of our aid to Israel does in fact bear returns. I'll point out that the second largest recipient of US aid is Egypt, closely following Israel. Do you know what that is? It's because we offered both countries substantial aid packages in order to get a peace agreement between them. What is it we get from Egypt, exactly? Pictures of the Sphinx?"

How does Israel help us? and we basically only paid egypt off so they could sellout on the arab nation, not so that we could help them.

Quote :

"What atrocities are we committing? I've heard you rail about them, but I haven't seen much evidence of their existence."

Quote :

"'Ugly reality' of Israel's atrocities This writer takes issue with Julie Burchill TO DEFEND Israel today is to be either callous or wilfully ignorant. Had Julie Burchill bothered during her visit there to cross the few miles from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank, she would have seen such human suffering as to disturb even her frenetic adulation of Israel. She might have seen the daily lot of nearly three million Palestinians as they battle with army checkpoints, curfews, random shootings, arbitrary arrests and air raids. She might have found that the “superJews” she so admires humiliate and oppress Palestinians at a whim: last year, at the Nablus checkpoint, a middle-aged man was made to strip, get down on all fours and bark like a dog before he could enter his city. Women in labour routinely wait at checkpoints until some give birth there and see their babies die. Those that survive live a blighted childhood. Since September 2000, Israel has killed more than 660 Palestinian children and wounded 9,000 — such as little Iman, sprayed with bullets when walking to school in Rafah last month, even after she died. Thousands of children are traumatised by the daily horrors they witness. For a Palestinian child, life under Israeli occupation means turning 15 and seeing the army come to arrest you if you are male, or seeing your friends bleed to death because no ambulance is allowed to rescue them. It is difficult to convey the scale and effect of Israel’s abuses of Palestinian lives through statistics alone. But these are horrifying enough: since 2000, nearly 4,000 Palestinians killed, and 30,000 injured; 400 were assas-sinated; and 25,000 homes were demolished. In addition, hundreds of acres of farmland were destroyed. No state on earth, except Israel, could get away with these atrocities, now routinely justified as “defence” against Palestinian “ terrorism”. The truth is that the West, which created Israel, cannot bear to see what it has done. In trying to solve the problem of Jewish persecution in Europe, which culminated in the Holocaust, Western powers helped to establish the Jewish state as a refuge for the Jews and their own consciences. A compelling argument at the time, it became unassailable when Old Testament stories about the ancient Israelites and their exploits in the Holy Land were thrown in. But these were European sensitivities arising from European events that had nothing to do with the people who paid the price for Israel’s establishment. Most Palestinians are Muslims who do not accept the Biblical version of events. So why were they sacrificed to assuage European guilt and fulfil Zionist ambitions? And who cares to compute the cost to the Palestinians of creating Israel 56 years ago? Far easier to ignore all that and cling to the romantic illusion of an Israel of fearless pioneers and liberal upholders of civilised, Western values. But the ugly reality behind this myth is showing and people like Julie Burchill will have to take note some day. "

WE BUY THIS
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article394547.ece

I don't care if he was palestinian but anyone who told you the creation of Israel was fair to the Palestinians is 100% biased. Also, some people who think they could be biased one way end up having such a large anti biasness that they end up being biased in the other direction.

Step outside the us for a second

Quote :

"I did know what the October surprise was."

Quote :

"Really? Ronald Reagan kept fifty-some Americans hostage for more than a year to win an election? Man, you'd think there would have been something on the news about that. Or maybe it's the case that you've departed from reality entirely."

l o l

Quote :

"I suppose we're to take your word for it, vague as it may be? And what kind of moron must your supposed friend be if he asked you to write a thesis? You can barely put a sentence together. I'm drunk as a red Indian and I'm more coherent than you. I can compile a list of horrific errors on your part in spelling, grammar, and syntax if you'd like."

No thanks. I concede that I don't mind typing errors on a message board when I'm trying to get a response in during work.

Quote :

"BBC World News on BBCAM, and in general listen to NPR when I'm in the car. You'll recall how all of these are known for being neoconservative propaganda machines."

although they do have somewhat of a pro america pro britain agenda and surely use great restraint as they don't want to be labeled as anti semitic news sources.

I had to split my post due to character limit

7/25/2008 12:22:04 PM

Fine I'll play your silly game....

Quote :

"Indeed I can google them and have tried to, and I've seen no evidence anywhere of: "

another bold face lie as I was able to turn up several results for each

Quote :

"1) Iran having 10 million fighters of any kind"

google "iran 10 million fighters"-feeling lucky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYQqHjnPu0

Quote :

"2) The possibility of an Iranian stealth army"

lots of stuff about stealth boats, drones, ground movement and fighters

Quote :

"These vessels are armed in various ways. The tiniest craft usually carry small arms, and personnel aboard have been observed wielding hand-held anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. The larger ones usually have heavy machine guns and light cannon. Many of these boats are fast, some able to make as much as 60 kilometers an hour. These craft are ideally suited to "guerrilla warfare at sea" in the constrained waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, particularly since major navies lack much capability to oppose "swarm" attacks by large numbers of fast surface craft."

Quote :

"3) Handheld antitank weapons that could cripple US armored units"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toophan_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAD_%28missile%29
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/2001/08/01/15164/Iran-successfully.htm

Quote :

"4) Any possibility of successful US attack against US troop positions in Iraq or Afghanistan "

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=93928

Quote :

""The first US shot on Iran would set the United States' vital interests in the world on fire," said Ali Shirazi, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the naval forces of the elite Revolutionary Guards. "Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the targets that would be set on fire in Iran's crushing response," he added."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZSdlbEEJs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRuCH-31nHg

So not only do you live under a rock, you are completely incapable of using google

Quote :

"It's borderline Nazism"

see what I mean. Anyone who doesn't support Israel is a nazi. Maybe he's joking but thats how it works for real.

Also one last headline to spice it up

Quote :

"Pakistan warns against attack on Iran - Tehran Times"

7/25/2008 12:22:46 PM

Stop arguing with Earl

7/25/2008 1:13:09 PM

Quote :

"Israel may not be imperialist after all. They could accurately be referred to as a terrorist state but either way they are straight up evil."

Finally! The evil part is entirely too subjective for me to bother with but at least we've finally got you acknowledging that words have definitions. Yeah, Jewish organizations in Palestine were a bit terroristic, and a lot of the members of that movement later went on to become leaders of the country who ironically railed against terrorism.

---

Quote :

"They don't want to wipe anybody off the map they just want some form of justice."

So far the evidence for this isn't wholly reassuring. You'll find plenty of info on the "wiped off the map" comment and others here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_translation

A few highlights:

Quote :

"The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference."

OK, so Ahmadinejad didn't say it, Ahmadinejad's propaganda arm said it. Much better.

Also most of the clarification involved seems to be that they don't want to remove Israel from the map, they just want to remove the Jews from power. The problem is that these things are essentially one and the same. You don't have to be a history doctorate to know what happens when the ruling population is ousted by the oppressed population.

---

Quote :

"Conform simply means stop funding their blood."

No...no it doesn't. Israel may be a big reason many of the terrorists and organizations dislike us, but it is far from being the only one -- and perhaps it isn't even the biggest one. Al Qaeda's big original reason for hating us is that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia -- at Saudi Arabia's request, to defend it from a belligerent Iraq in 1990.

Our two wars also certainly generate some dislike, but at least one of those wars was defensive against organized terrorism -- and arguably it was successful, given the fragmentation of Al Qaeda that many experts perceive. Lastly there is Iraq, of course, but then again plenty of terrorists hated us before we invaded there.

Quote :

"I don't know why you keep referring to the cold war as "unscathed" when we were a flukish feather away from nuclear apocalypse."

Now, remember our lesson about "imperialistic" and how it has a definition? So does "unscathed." It means "not harmed or damaged." I used it because in the Cold War we got by unscathed. We didn't collapse and we didn't have a major confrontation with the Soviets, nuclear or otherwise.

What you're arguing is that we were almost not[/u] unscathed, which doesn't change the fact that ultimately we were.

And a lot of this paranoid, hypothetical revisionism is beside the point. Yeah, we got close a couple of times. I've also been close to being run over a couple of times. That doesn't mean my system of walking is irreparably flawed. As nervous as it appears to make you, MADD [i]did get us through the Cold War alive, in one piece, and without anybody dropping the Big One.

Quote :

"you're right. just look at us and britain."

OK. Anti-British sentiment was a going concern in this country up until around 1900. It's one of the reasons for War Plan Red, the old U.S. warplan for invading Canada.

Quote :

"coincidental, wrong place wrong time, undiscriminating piracy, irrelevant"

It demonstrates that distance and a lack of prior meddling do not mean that they or anybody else will ignore us.

Quote :

"Because its more of a dispute and not just one side taking everything then calling peace as if nothing ever happened."

I'm certain the exact same thing would never have happened if the Arab groups had every actually won a war against Israel.

Quote :

"A great amount of which came as illegal immigrants or terrorists before Britain finally gave in (only because money was low) and gave them someone elses land just to get them off their neck."

But you see, as we've covered it wasn't someone else's land. It was Britain's. They won it in a war someone else started. Even if it wasn't their land, whose was it? The Palestinians, who had never had any sort of state there, and who had always been split among provinces of other empires?

---

Quote :

"I'm glad you found my point."

It's incredibly inane. You have made the criteria for your dislike of Israel so narrow it might as well be meaningless.

To repeat the two quotes that eventually led to your comment:

wethebest:

Quote :

"This is just 60 years ago and the resulting conflict is still very much alive and needs to be resolved"

GrumpyGOP:

Quote :

"Most of the nations of Africa were created more recently than Israel and many if not most of them have ongoing conflicts stemming from that process to this day. Where's the ire about that?"

First you say you single out the Israeli situation because it started so recently and produced conflicts that are still going on today. I point out that there are many countries that meet those standards. Now you only care when the country has a large non-native population? That is the crux of the immorality for you?

---

Quote :

"and we basically only paid egypt off so they could sellout on the arab nation, not so that we could help them. "

We did the same to Israel. We were giving them plenty of money before, but as part of our deal we agreed to pay them off as well. And what we get for our money is a little bit more peace in a region with not enough of it, as well as the development of a very populous third-world nation.

---

Now, onto the atrocities: good job! It's a source, and one that doesn't like completely idiotic.

I don't like any of it, and frankly there's plenty that the Israelis could probably avoid. But at the same time there are unfortunate consequences to launching a guerrilla war from within your own population centers, as the Iraqis are discovering. The consequence is that you bring the threat that should be directed at you alone down on civilians.

Of course, if the Palestinians are in a tearing hurry to fight, that's pretty much the only way they can do it. The country is too dense to fight any other kind of war. The one option they always seem unable to follow, though, is simply not fighting.

Quote :

"I don't care if he was palestinian but anyone who told you the creation of Israel was fair to the Palestinians is 100% biased."

He wasn't Palestinian, he was Lebanese (I assume you're referring Khater). He also didn't tell me that the creation of Israel was fair to the Palestinians. In fact he was fairly clear on all the reasons it wasn't. Thanks for playing, though.

Quote :

"l o l"

I'm well aware that Reagan was in secret negotiations to get the hostages, and that in order to fund them it was necessary to sell arms to a wholly undesirable group in Central America. It was kind of a big deal, and it is widely recognized that it was a ploy to win the election.

What's not widely recognized -- and what you've failed to demonstrate -- is that Reagan actually impeded the hostage release. Reagan was worried that their early release might give votes to Carter, of course, but you can worry about something without performing some unconscionable act to resolve it. Two congressional hearings and various investigative reporters all decided against the "conspiracy" tack that you're taking.

Actually, looking into it now, I can't help but laugh -- apparently neither of us knows what the original October Surprise was:

Quote :

"The original Carter October Surprise was first written about in a Jack Anderson article in the Washington Post in the fall of 1980, in which he alleged that the Carter administration was preparing a massive military invasion of Iran for rescuing the hostages in order to help him get reelected."

The Reagan version came shortly after.

---

Quote :

"although they do have somewhat of a pro america pro britain agenda and surely use great restraint as they don't want to be labeled as anti semitic news sources."

You seem to be implying that it is impossible to be remotely objective about Israel without hating and constantly bashing it. And I don't know which BBC you are familiar with, but they don't exactly molly-coddle the Israelis.

What news source do you recommend for unbiased coverage? This I cannot wait to see.

Quote :

"google "iran 10 million fighters"-feeling lucky"

I never do the "feeling lucky" bit, but OK. What you have provided is a video of an Iranian television interview with an Iranian military leaders. You don't think that maybe...just maybe...this source might be full of shit?

From wikipedia:

Quote :

"The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable. There are a claimed 2,500 battalions of which some are full-time personnel.[5] Globalsecurity.org quotes a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 1 million men that can be mobilized if need be."

Quote :

"lots of stuff about stealth boats, drones, ground movement and fighters"

Iran doesn't have stealth fighters or drones, and its boats aren't able to get them to Israel.

7/25/2008 2:39:26 PM

Splitting my post as well:

The Toophan 2's and RAAD's are fine and all, but again, being effective in a defensive war against Merkava tanks is not the same as being in an offensive war against Abrams tanks. As for the Saeqeh-1, what you have all descriptions of the weapons of its strength coming from Iran's propaganda arm. It may be a real tank killer, and it may be jack shit.

The dailystar article references Iran retaliating against the US fleet in the region, and then only mentions doing so if America fires the first shot.

7/25/2008 2:46:00 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that these things are essentially one and the same. You don't have to be a history doctorate to know what happens when the ruling population is ousted by the oppressed population."

Its not the same. If you really wanted to talk democracy it should have been 1 state from the beginning that allowed jews in together (as the article by the holocaust victim suggested) with the Palestinians but they wouldn't have that as it wouldn't give them a sole monopoly over the government.

Quote :

"No...no it doesn't. Israel may be a big reason many of the terrorists and organizations dislike us, but it is far from being the only one -- and perhaps it isn't even the biggest one. Al Qaeda's big original reason for hating us is that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia -- at Saudi Arabia's request, to defend it from a belligerent Iraq in 1990."

It means leave the entire area alone. We are constantly coming from the other side of the world meddling in their affairs. Of course they're going to hate us.

Quote :

"Our two wars also certainly generate some dislike, but at least one of those wars was defensive against organized terrorism -- and arguably it was successful, given the fragmentation of Al Qaeda that many experts perceive. Lastly there is Iraq, of course, but then again plenty of terrorists hated us before we invaded there."

As you stated, this "defense" war woulnd't have happened if we didn't have troops in the region in the first place.

Quote :

"Now, remember our lesson about "imperialistic" and how it has a definition? So does "unscathed." It means "not harmed or damaged." I used it because in the Cold War we got by unscathed. We didn't collapse and we didn't have a major confrontation with the Soviets, nuclear or otherwise. "

Although true by definition, context is very important. If I run back and forth across interstate 95 and don't get hit it would be very mis informative to suggest this is a good, safe idea just because I was lucky enough to come out unscathed one time.

Quote :

"t demonstrates that distance and a lack of prior meddling do not mean that they or anybody else will ignore us."

They didn't terrorize us on us soil. They pirated any ships they could obviously those weren't british or spanish.

Quote :

"I'm certain the exact same thing would never have happened if the Arab groups had every actually won a war against Israel. "

I'm not sure the tone/meaning of the sentence. It seems fishy and the italics make me wonder if its sarcasm or what.

Quote :

"But you see, as we've covered it wasn't someone else's land. It was Britain's. They won it in a war someone else started. Even if it wasn't their land, whose was it? The Palestinians, who had never had any sort of state there, and who had always been split among provinces of other empires?"

They always lived there. Of course they were ruled by different powers in the age of savage internationalism but this was supposed to be the end of that era and the beginning of allowing inhabitants control of their own land. Instead a backwards move was made by the British int his case because they were tired of zionist attacks and out of money.

The Churchill quote I posted is clear evidence of the British/European perception of Palestinians as something less than human at the time. So who cared if they were displaced in this process?

Quote :

"First you say you single out the Israeli situation because it started so recently and produced conflicts that are still going on today. I point out that there are many countries that meet those standards. Now you only care when the country has a large non-native population?"

Forget to include the part where you tried to use the us as an excuse which would have been good had it been in the time period because it involved the same type deal with europeans moving in and kicking out natives. the natives had been there but they had no type of state so they were basically just savages and less the human and besides, they hadn't been there forever anyway.

So you tried to cop out of that and find a modern example to use like you were going to use America and suggested Africa but there is nothing anywhere near similar in Africa.

Quote :

"We did the same to Israel. We were giving them plenty of money before, but as part of our deal we agreed to pay them off as well. And what we get for our money is a little bit more peace in a region with not enough of it, as well as the development of a very populous third-world nation. "

How do you "pay off" somebody thats already happy? They had already stolen all the land/power they wanted so of course they would take money for peace after the fact. Thats like if I hit up a jewelry store and the police pay me to stop from now on and never steal again. Of course I'm going to accept that offer.

Quote :

"simply not fighting"

ya you're right. why don't they just welcome the bulldozers,police brutalizers and settlers into their homes with open arms and festivals?

Quote :

"What's not widely recognized -- and what you've failed to demonstrate -- is that Reagan actually impeded the hostage release. Reagan was worried that their early release might give votes to Carter, of course, but you can worry about something without performing some unconscionable act to resolve it."

Quote :

"representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign had conspired with Islamic Republic of Iran to delay the release of 52 Americans held hostage in Tehran until after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. In exchange for their cooperation, the United States would supply weapons to Iran as well as unfreeze Iran's monetary assets being held by the US government."

Quote :

"Two congressional hearings and various investigative reporters all decided against the "conspiracy" tack that you're taking."

Of course, why would the us want to expose itself-affiliates of such scandal to the entire internation. What is there to gain?

Quote :

"Nevertheless, several individuals, most notably Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and Former Reagan-Bush Campaign and White House Staffer Barbara Honegger, continue to claim otherwise."

Quote :

"What news source do you recommend for unbiased coverage? This I cannot wait to see."

I'm not sure if any news source is completely unbiased. What I suggest you do though, is instead of looking for a news source to trust, to read multiple sources and collect facts and formulate your own opinion based on facts.

Quote :

"What you have provided is a video of an Iranian television interview with an Iranian military leaders. You don't think that maybe...just maybe...this source might be full of shit?"

How dare I confirm information on the Iranian military with...THE IRANIAN MILITARY

Quote :

"Iran doesn't have stealth fighters or drones, and its boats aren't able to get them to Israel. "

Maybe you should start goggling each claim you make before you make it. That way you won't keep making all these false statements.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63833§ionid=351020101
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Claims_New_Stealth_Drone_That_Can_Attack_US_Gulf_Fleet_999.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread210238/pg1

Quote :

"The Toophan 2's and RAAD's are fine and all, but again, being effective in a defensive war against Merkava tanks is not the same as being in an offensive war against Abrams tanks. As for the Saeqeh-1, what you have all descriptions of the weapons of its strength coming from Iran's propaganda arm. It may be a real tank killer, and it may be jack shit."

Almost all of these weapons are either a. russian developed b. reverse engineered copies or c.successfully tested. They also have armor penetrating thickness capabilities that exceed what it would take to destroy a theoretical tank with the specs of an abrams

Quote :

" The dailystar article references Iran retaliating against the US fleet in the region, and then only mentions doing so if America fires the first shot."

Obviously, thats what this whole thread is about. If Israel/usa were to attack Iran. We already know Iran isn't a hostile nation and this is all in the case that Iran is violated.

7/25/2008 4:08:22 PM

Quote :

"Its not the same. If you really wanted to talk democracy it should have been 1 state from the beginning that allowed jews in together (as the article by the holocaust victim suggested) with the Palestinians"

I tend to agree that it should have been one state from the beginning, but I'm wondering whether the Palestinians felt the same way at the time -- ie, they wouldn't have it because they didn't want to have to share power with the Jews.

Of course, there are some fairly legitimate historical reasons that explain why Jews would think any government they didn't dominate would oppress them.

That said, how is it "not the same?" Look at any of a smattering of countries in Africa and former Yugoslavia and you see a clear pattern. Group A dominates the country for years in a fashion that Group B perceives as illegitimate. Group B takes power and immediately goes after Group A in a violent, unpleasant, Rwanda-esque way.

Quote :

"It means leave the entire area alone."

So your position is essentially that we should be isolationist?

Quote :

"As you stated, this "defense" war woulnd't have happened if we didn't have troops in the region in the first place."

Possibly true, but it bears repeating that our troops were invited into the region to provide defense and to liberate a country that continues to be quite grateful.

Quote :

"If I run back and forth across interstate 95 and don't get hit it would be very mis informative to suggest this is a good, safe idea just because I was lucky enough to come out unscathed one time."

It would also be foolish to say that you were not unscathed.

Of course, it wasn't just one time that MADD seemed to work. As you say, both sides came close several times, but never actually went through with it -- because they knew the consequences as defined by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Quote :

"They didn't terrorize us on us soil."

Is the extent of your isolationist tendencies so great that you don't think we should trade with the rest of the world, or attempt to protect our trade?

Quote :

"I'm not sure the tone/meaning of the sentence. It seems fishy and the italics make me wonder if its sarcasm or what."

The meaning was clear: if the Arab forces had ever actually won one of their aggressive wars against Israel, they would have seized everything and then called a peace "as if nothing ever happened."

Quote :

"They always lived there."

They also never had any visible nationalist leanings until this century.

Quote :

"Of course they were ruled by different powers in the age of savage internationalism"

The point isn't that they were always ruled, it's that even within those empires it was never really any sort of distinct entity (at least not in the past several hundred years). From the Middle Ages until the end of WWI, "Palestine" was not a political entity -- even its population didn't regard it as such.

Quote :

"Forget to include the part where you tried to use the us as an excuse which would have been good had it been in the time period because it involved the same type deal with europeans moving in and kicking out natives."

Right. I made the point, you said it didn't matter because it was outdated. OK, I said, if you want to ignore similar situations in the past, why not similar situations in the present? Since you couldn't take the "that was too long ago" route anymore, you've taken to repeating that no situation in the world today is similar to that in Israel.

The problem is, the only difference you've actually been able to point out -- that no African country is predominantly inhabited by a non-native population -- doesn't have any visible relevance. People moving into an area isn't inherently an outrage. Indeed, there were many Palestinians who initially welcomed the influx of Jews, who brought with them money and skills.

Quote :

"How do you "pay off" somebody thats already happy?"

They weren't happy and still aren't. Relatively powerful as Israel may be, it's surrounded by enemy states and has very little global popularity. It is in a position of vulnerability. Everything they give up in terms of territory and other assets only increases that vulnerability. We and the Egyptians were asking them to give up a very large buffer area in the Sinai that gave them leverage against the Suez to preempt yet another Egyptian attack. In order to get them to go along with that, we paid them off. The result is normalized Israeli-Egyptian relations and a dramatically reduced risk of combat in the area.

Quote :

"why don't they just welcome the bulldozers,police brutalizers and settlers into their homes with open arms and festivals?"

You laugh, but it worked for India. An enormous population with military experience that could have easily fought and won an unconventional war with Britain opted not to, and now they're a democracy with a rapidly growing economy.

Terrorism causes police brutalizers, and police brutalizers cause terrorism. Theoretically, Israel could just stop being mean and eventually gain success, but unfortunately that's not all the Palestinians want. The Israelis, on the other hand, essentially just want the terrorism to cease. As you say, they already have the territory they want, and they've demonstrated a willingness to pull out settlements and military populations from some of the overlap. All that needs to be done to satisfy the Israelis and gain widespread support from virtually every nation on Earth is for the Palestinians to abandon their violent tactics.

Quote :

"Of course, why would the us want to expose itself-affiliates of such scandal to the entire internation. What is there to gain?"

Sadly motive isn't enough for conviction.

Quote :

"What I suggest you do though, is instead of looking for a news source to trust"

I don't need to trust them implicitly, I just need to know that they're generally more trustworthy than the rest.

Quote :

"How dare I confirm information on the Iranian military with...THE IRANIAN MILITARY"

Every military leader since before Sun Tzu has known that it is in a general's interest to lie about their strength.

You might as well say, "How dare I confirm OJ Simpson's innocence with OJ Simpson?" Or perhaps, even better, "How dare I confirm North Korea's infinitely superior global power with Kim Jong Il?"

Quote :

"Maybe you should start goggling each claim you make before you make it."

Maybe you should stop posting unconfirmed claims by Iranian officials and news outlets. The most believable of these being the presence of an unarmed reconnaissance drone. And this -- this is the evidence you point to for Iran's massive stealth army?

Quote :

"They also have armor penetrating thickness capabilities that exceed what it would take to destroy a theoretical tank with the specs of an abrams"

It's interesting that you are privy to an Abrams armor specs, given that to the best of my knowledge they're still classified.

Quote :

"Obviously, thats what this whole thread is about. If Israel/usa were to attack Iran."

My specific point was that the piece had no relevance to the scenario you originally put forward, and which I now see you are spending -0- time trying to defend.

That is to say, it said Iran would attack the U.S. Navy and Israel (not Iraq) with long-range missiles (not an army) in the event of a U.S. strike (not the Israeli one you started off discussing.

7/25/2008 5:40:13 PM

hey, can you guys direct me to the fake talk?

7/27/2008 1:48:19 AM

Pretty much everything that has come out of wethebest's mouth so far.

7/27/2008 2:02:40 AM

Quote :

""Again, I apologize for not saving every single thing I read for the case that one day I might run itno someone who has never ventured outside the fox news network." I do not now, nor have I ever, watched Fox news. Generally I don't watch television news at all, although when I remember to I catch the BBC World News on BBCAM, and in general listen to NPR when I'm in the car. You'll recall how all of these are known for being neoconservative propaganda machines. "

Haha, you have to admit though that your screenname does give the wrong impression about you, if someone doesn't actually comprehend your posts...

7/27/2008 2:12:27 AM

For a while I was worried about the possibility of the name confusing people, but now it just makes it so much more satisfying when I smack them down for reading a book by its cover.

7/27/2008 4:41:41 PM

Quote :

" That said, how is it "not the same?" Look at any of a smattering of countries in Africa and former Yugoslavia and you see a clear pattern. Group A dominates the country for years in a fashion that Group B perceives as illegitimate. Group B takes power and immediately goes after Group A in a violent, unpleasant, Rwanda-esque way."

Its not the same because most of these Jews were European immigrants. The Palestinians might have been mad about it back then but I'm pretty sure the issues would be resolved today.

Quote :

"So your position is essentially that we should be isolationist?"

To a moderate degree yes and you know exactly what that level of moderation is and what I consider crossing the line.

Quote :

"Is the extent of your isolationist tendencies so great that you don't think we should trade with the rest of the world, or attempt to protect our trade?"

Protecting our trade is exactly that, protecting our trade. Invading other countries, installing governments and giving blind aid to terrorists is not how you protect trade. Other nations protect their trade just fine without pissing anybody off. Why can't we?

Quote :

"The meaning was clear: if the Arab forces had ever actually won one of their aggressive wars against Israel, they would have seized everything and then called a peace "as if nothing ever happened.""

Because things would've been restored to how they were before anything "ever happened"

Quote :

"The problem is, the only difference you've actually been able to point out -- that no African country is predominantly inhabited by a non-native population -- doesn't have any visible relevance. People moving into an area isn't inherently an outrage. Indeed, there were many Palestinians who initially welcomed the influx of Jews, who brought with them money and skills."

People moving in isn't the problem. People moving in and taking over is the problem. Its a huge and uncomparable difference from a group that is already there trying to take over vs a new group of immigrants taking over.

Quote :

"They weren't happy and still aren't. Relatively powerful as Israel may be, it's surrounded by enemy states and has very little global popularity. It is in a position of vulnerability."

Ok maybe happy was the wrong term because they might not be happy until they have 100% but partially satisfied might work better since they did ya know, have their own state exactly where they wanted under the exact conditions they wanted.

Quote :

"Sadly motive isn't enough for conviction. "

But in my book, people from all sides confirming it happened is.

Quote :

"Every military leader since before Sun Tzu has known that it is in a general's interest to lie about their strength. You might as well say, "How dare I confirm OJ Simpson's innocence with OJ Simpson?" Or perhaps, even better, "How dare I confirm North Korea's infinitely superior global power with Kim Jong Il?""

This isn't a Baghdad bob type of thing. Much of this strength has been confirmed by news sources.

Quote :

"Maybe you should stop posting unconfirmed claims by Iranian officials and news outlets. The most believable of these being the presence of an unarmed reconnaissance drone. And this -- this is the evidence you point to for Iran's massive stealth army?"

You said you searched and found NO evidence of anything I mentioned. That either says to me a. you can't read and search the internet or b. you lied and are caught. I'm leaning towards B.

Quote :

"It's interesting that you are privy to an Abrams armor specs, given that to the best of my knowledge they're still classified."

Exact specs but from pictures, performance, cost and materials used experts can pretty accurately estimate specs.

Quote :

"That is to say, it said Iran would attack the U.S. Navy and Israel (not Iraq) with long-range missiles (not an army) in the event of a U.S. strike (not the Israeli one you started off discussing."

Again, the whole basis of this thread is the fact that an Israeli strike would likely mean the U.S. would be involved and vice versa.

Quote :

"Pretty much everything that has come out of wethebest's mouth so far."

Exactly what I'm talking about. Anything that doesn't make Israel US out to be angelic protectors of world freedom is a fake lie made up by an antisemite...and even if this was meant as a joke that is pretty much the constant way things work in the West.

7/28/2008 11:07:37 AM

Quote :

"Its not the same because most of these Jews were European immigrants. The Palestinians might have been mad about it back then but I'm pretty sure the issues would be resolved today."

None of this addresses my point at all.

Quote :

"To a moderate degree yes and you know exactly what that level of moderation is and what I consider crossing the line."

How do I know this? So far, all you've talked about is the Middle East. What level of "moderate isolationism" is appropriate, and why is it appropriate?

Quote :

"Protecting our trade is exactly that, protecting our trade. Invading other countries, installing governments and giving blind aid to terrorists is not how you protect trade."

I beg to differ. Our support of the coup in Iran was very much about protecting our oil trade. Our placement of troops in Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait were about the same. I'll assume that's protecting our trade too much. Where do you draw the line at?

Quote :

"Because things would've been restored to how they were"

How they were when? Before any Jews moved to Palestine or before they had their own state? And do you still not see how the one leads to the other and vice versa?

Quote :

"Its a huge and uncomparable difference from a group that is already there trying to take over vs a new group of immigrants taking over."

Frequently enough the group in charge has been an indigenous group, yes, but a minority one, placed in power by European policies. It's all just a case of one group taking power through unnatural means as a result of outside interference.

You are bending over backwards to see a difference in the situations, and you are consistently failing. Let me explain to you the only important differences:

1) Africa is full of different kinds of black people that are hard to tell apart, so you have trouble understanding what the big deal is
2) There's a lot of oil in one place and not in the other
3) You're a brainwashed semi-literate whose brainwashing happens to pertain to Israel and not Africa

Quote :

"Ok maybe happy was the wrong term because they might not be happy until they have 100% but partially satisfied might work better since they did ya know, have their own state exactly where they wanted under the exact conditions they wanted."

I'm pretty sure "the exact conditions they wanted" would have included not being immediately and repeatedly invaded and attacked.

You continue to belabor under the assumption that Israeli's primary motivation is territory rather than security.

Quote :

"But in my book, people from all sides confirming it happened is. "

What you have is a minority of individuals from both sides saying a thing happened and a majority saying it didn't. Well, actually, that's just scratching the surface; what you have is an irrational need to cling to this and other unsubstantiated theories about how the world works because you're too vacuous to understand the reality.

Quote :

"This isn't a Baghdad bob type of thing. Much of this strength has been confirmed by news sources."

No. Some strength has been confirmed -- the majority of the claims you've posted have not, unless you count the Iranian news services, which are directly controlled by the government and therefore just about as reliable as what the generals say.

What's pathetic is that the "10 million armed fighters" thing isn't even all that germane to most of what you're talking about now, but you refuse to just admit you were wrong and move on.

Quote :

"You said you searched and found NO evidence of anything I mentioned."

And so I didn't. The sad thing for you is that, A or B, it doesn't matter. When you finally did what you should've done all along and backed up the preposterous bullshit you were claiming, you backed it up with rubbish. You fought tooth and nail to avoid having to post sources. You claimed that your information come from written articles from a variety of sources. When pressed for those sources, you posted some inane videos, a couple of wikipedia articles that didn't actually support anything you've claimed, and a handful of similar newspaper articles.

Are we to assume that this sage documentation went into the many "thesies" that you've written on the subject? Good Lord, I feel sorry for your friends, if this is the kind of malarkey you put into their academic papers.

Quote :

"Exact specs but from pictures, performance, cost and materials used experts can pretty accurately estimate specs."

What evidence do you have of this? Especially since details of the performance and materials are also classified. I think what it's time to do is to go ahead and admit that you were full of shit when you claimed to know that these AT weapons "exceed what it would take to destroy a theoretical tank with the specs of an abrams."

Quote :

"gain, the whole basis of this thread is the fact that an Israeli strike would likely mean the U.S. would be involved and vice versa."

Yeah, um....but that's not how it started. That only became the "basis" for this thread after you repeatedly got called out. Iran has said it would attack us if we attacked it, as per the article that you yourself posted. You've provided no evidence that an Israeli strike would be met with counterattacks against US forces.

Quote :

"Exactly what I'm talking about. Anything that doesn't make Israel US out to be angelic protectors of world freedom is a fake lie made up by an antisemite"

No, wethebest. Work with me here. I'm saying that you are wrong not because you're an anti-semite but because pretty much everything you've said in here is demonstrably wrong.

7/29/2008 1:15:14 PM

Quote :

"ow do I know this? So far, all you've talked about is the Middle East. What level of "moderate isolationism" is appropriate, and why is it appropriate?"

To the point where you're not invading the sovereignty of other nations.

Quote :

"I beg to differ. Our support of the coup in Iran was very much about protecting our oil trade. Our placement of troops in Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait were about the same. I'll assume that's protecting our trade too much. Where do you draw the line at?"

Out of line. when you say "protecting our trade" you mean like shipping and stuff not making sure certain resources will be yours. The oil is not "ours".

Quote :

"How they were when? Before any Jews moved to Palestine or before they had their own state? And do you still not see how the one leads to the other and vice versa?"

No, before they had their own state there were jews living there and some jews illegally immigrating. With no state the mass inodus of Jews would have never occurred.

Quote :

"You're a brainwashed semi-literate whose brainwashing happens to pertain to Israel and not Africa"

haha im the one thats brainwashed. now thats a good one.

Different situations are completely different. You can't take two of these situations and compare them. they are nothing alike really except a few similarities.

Quote :

"You continue to belabor under the assumption that Israeli's primary motivation is territory rather than security."

If its security then they can end the state now and go back to Europe if they don't like the democratic government. I'm sure there won't be another Hitler just waiting for them this time...

Quote :

"What you have is a minority of individuals from both sides saying a thing happened and a majority saying it didn't. Well, actually, that's just scratching the surface; what you have is an irrational need to cling to this and other unsubstantiated theories about how the world works because you're too vacuous to understand the reality."

This is what happens in cover ups.

Quote :

"Are we to assume that this sage documentation went into the many "thesies" that you've written on the subject? Good Lord, I feel sorry for your friends, if this is the kind of malarkey you put into their academic papers."

Like I said, those were years ago and I don't have the sources. Actual sources are hard to find and I'm not going to go to the library and databases to research something I already know fluently just so you can learn a bit. I was simply exposing your lie of not being able to find ANYTHING with a simple google search that turned up THOUSANDS of things for everything i've said. Don't try to twist and create situations that aren't real to benefit you. Miley Cyrus.

Quote :

"What evidence do you have of this? Especially since details of the performance and materials are also classified. I think what it's time to do is to go ahead and admit that you were full of shit when you claimed to know that these AT weapons "exceed what it would take to destroy a theoretical tank with the specs of an abrams.""

Now you're contradicting yourself. Apparently America has all these tanks that are industructable but the specs are classified so theres no way to know, but they are but when it comes to Iran, they don't have anything unless its PROVEN. All the world knows for sure is that Americans have been hit in Iraq by cheap rpgs while Iranian weapons from 3 volumes ago gave Israel's best tanks fits.

Quote :

"You've provided no evidence that an Israeli strike would be met with counterattacks against US forces."

Yes but you seem to be assuming that Iran's counterattacks against Israel wouldn't be molested by US forces. That is extremely hard to believe because it would envolve Iraqi airspace. Once the US fired a shot then it would be on. I'm under the assumption that once Iran does anything in defense of an Israeli attack, the us will immediately be involved hence the name of the thread. How did I get called out before the op?

Quote :

" wethebest. Work with me here. I'm saying that you are wrong not because you're an anti-semite"

7/31/2008 2:21:38 PM

Quote :

"To the point where you're not invading the sovereignty of other nations."

OK, so then your isolationism does not go so far as to say we should not have sent troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which were invited and indeed requested by both of those governments. Request for military aid, of course, being a subject of national sovereignty.

Quote :

"Out of line. when you say "protecting our trade" you mean like shipping and stuff not making sure certain resources will be yours. The oil is not "ours"."

Well that's the question, now isn't it? Certain things are necessary to our economic survival and advancement. That includes protecting our own shipping, certainly. That's the most basic level. There's also the shipping of other countries bound for us. Should we not protect that? And then there are resources which, one way or the other, we currently need in certain quantities in order to maintain our place in the global market. Clearly you don't seem to favor our protection of these assets. But then again...what about protecting foreign companies that have agreed, without coercion, to meet certain trade arrangements with us? What about American-owned companies with facilities overseas -- indeed, with American personnel overseas? Exactly where do you draw the line on protecting American trade?

Quote :

"With no state the mass inodus of Jews would have never occurred."

Not only have you completely avoided the question (because of a profound lack of either understanding or honesty), you appear to have claimed that the absence of a Jewish state would have prevented a large influx of Jewish people to Palestine -- something that was already happening long before the state ever took hold.

Quote :

"You can't take two of these situations and compare them. they are nothing alike really except a few similarities."

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the meaning of the word "compare" as well as the necessity to substantiate your arguments, all within two sentences.

Quote :

"If its security then they can end the state now and go back to Europe if they don't like the democratic government."

For a brief, shining moment, I had some hope that maybe you weren't a complete ignoramus. Clearly that confidence in your ability to grasp history was misguided. I apologize.

The whole reason that Jews moved out of Europe (and the rest of the world) to Palestine was the way in which history constantly, repeatedly, incessantly demonstrated that they could not have any security to speak of in a country in which they represented the minority. This isn't just a case of some "Europeans being mean to them." This is a case of more than one thousand years of systematic oppression of the Jewish population in every single place they ever lived, ever. They were arguably more consistently oppressed than any other ethnic/religious minority in the history of human civilization. Congratulations to you for falling into a different category, but your complete and profound lack of understanding of the psychology such circumstances promotes clearly proves to me, once and for all, that you are beyond help.

Quote :

"This is what happens in cover ups."

It's also what happens with unsubstantiated conspiracies. Sorry, pal, but the burden of proof is on you.

Quote :

"Like I said, those were years ago and I don't have the sources. Actual sources are hard to find and I'm not going to go to the library and databases to research something I already know fluently just so you can learn a bit. I was simply exposing your lie of not being able to find ANYTHING with a simple google search that turned up THOUSANDS of things for everything i've said."

1) You don't remember one single publication from which you recall reading an article? All you have is fairly recent stuff from Iranian and irrelevant sources? That's pretty goddamn pathetic.
2) I don't want you to scour databases. I want you to name even one remotely reputable source from which you gathered information. I don't care if it's just the name of the publication, I will try to find anything within that set that substantiates anything that you've said so far.
3) I did google searches. I found nothing that was, as I've said, even remotely reputable. I can find a handful of whackjob youtube videos that will claim anything, up to and including the sky being green and the ocean being white. You have presented nothing but garbage.
4) THOUSANDS of sources or thousands of matches? Because I could bet that entering pretty much anything involving the words "iran," "military," etc. would provide thousands of matches. That doesn't mean that a single goddamn one of them backs up what you've said. Of course, some of them did back up what you've said, and all of them come from the Iranian propaganda ministry.

Quote :

"Now you're contradicting yourself. Apparently America has all these tanks that are industructable but the specs are classified so theres no way to know, but they are but when it comes to Iran, they don't have anything unless its PROVEN. All the world knows for sure is that Americans have been hit in Iraq by cheap rpgs while Iranian weapons from 3 volumes ago gave Israel's best tanks fits."

I've seen no evidence whatsoever of significant American tank casualties in Iraq. Being able to blow up a humvee or transport is a far cry from being able to blow up an Abrams.

Don't try to change the subject. You have claimed to have some knowledge of the specs of an Abrams tank. When I pointed out that it was impossible that you could have such a thing, you tried to say that "experts" could piece it together. You've provided no evidence for any of these assertions.

Israel's best tanks are Merkavas, not Abrams. The former are fine tanks, but they are not the latter.

Quote :

"Yes but you seem to be assuming that Iran's counterattacks against Israel wouldn't be molested by US forces. That is extremely hard to believe because it would envolve Iraqi airspace. Once the US fired a shot then it would be on. I'm under the assumption that once Iran does anything in defense of an Israeli attack, the us will immediately be involved hence the name of the thread. How did I get called out before the op?"

Iraqi airspace is one reason that Israel would not easily be able to strike Iran without our express prior permission. You seem to assume it's a forgone conclusion that we will give them a blank check to do whatever they want.

I am working precisely with the idea that Iran's response would involve the United States, and that precisely because you described such scenarios, which I have been refuting the entire time. You have repeatedly claimed in this thread that an Israeli attack on Iran would result with one of a few improbable consequences for US forces. You've yet to be able to substantiate any of them.

I want you to demonstrate the plausibility of any of the scenarios you have described. It would be a welcome relief.

---

I don't understand the relevance of the last quote at all. I specifically said that I wasn't calling you wrong for being an anti-semite -- I have no idea whether you're an anti-semite, although your anti-zionist position is clear and presented in such a way that leads me to suspicions. I specifically stated that I thought you were wrong because you are, well, demonstrably wrong.

8/1/2008 3:59:33 AM

Quote :

"OK, so then your isolationism does not go so far as to say we should not have sent troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which were invited and indeed requested by both of those governments. Request for military aid, of course, being a subject of national sovereignty."

I joint effort by your beloved un would be fine but never a sole us effort or a small "coalition of willing"

Quote :

"What about American-owned companies with facilities overseas -- indeed, with American personnel overseas? Exactly where do you draw the line on protecting American trade"

Well if i told you how i feel about outsourcing...

Quote :

"of a Jewish state would have prevented a large influx of Jewish people to Palestine -- something that was already happening long before the state ever took hold."

It would've been to a much less degree. Its like saying if south florida had become a cuban state then there would be a lot more cubans in south florida, not that there aren't a lot there anyway.

Quote :

"Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the meaning of the word "compare" "

Applesauce and Orange juice

Quote :

"This isn't just a case of some "Europeans being mean to them." This is a case of more than one thousand years of systematic oppression of the Jewish population in every single place they ever lived, ever. They were arguably more consistently oppressed than any other ethnic/religious minority in the history of human civilization. Congratulations to you for falling into a different category, but your complete and profound lack of understanding of the psychology such circumstances promotes clearly proves to me, once and for all, that you are beyond help."

Actually, in many of these periods and countries they were doing quite well. In the Weimer Republic for example, they represented an amazingly higher % of lawyers, doctors and bankers than any other demographic so much that ~50% of all of them were in those fields. This is one of the things Hitler ran with. So yes, other than the holocaust and occasions of people "being mean to them" they were doing quite well.

Quote :

"It's also what happens with unsubstantiated conspiracies. "

Nope, Neil Armstrong hasn't come out and said we never went to the moon.

Quote :

"1) You don't remember one single publication from which you recall reading an article? All you have is fairly recent stuff from Iranian and irrelevant sources? That's pretty goddamn pathetic."

I've since written at least ten more papers. Sorry if I don't have the memory of you to remember every single url I've ever visited and every author I've ever read. I would have them on my computer, but I had it formatted a year ago.

Quote :

"2) I don't want you to scour databases. I want you to name even one remotely reputable source from which you gathered information. I don't care if it's just the name of the publication, I will try to find anything within that set that substantiates anything that you've said so far."

The only way that can happen is if one of us "scours" the databases. Since I've already been there and done that and retained the information while you don't even know its exists, it would be much more efficient for that person to be you.

Quote :

"3) I did google searches. I found nothing that was, as I've said, even remotely reputable. I can find a handful of whackjob youtube videos that will claim anything, up to and including the sky being green and the ocean being white. You have presented nothing but garbage."

Google is not the place to look for scholarly sources but everything on google is not wrong. Just because something isn't in a peer reviewed paper doesn't mean its false.

Quote :

"and all of them come from the Iranian propaganda ministry."

Nope they can from a wide array of news sources even ones like fox news and an Israeli news source.

Quote :

"I've seen no evidence whatsoever of significant American tank casualties in Iraq. Being able to blow up a humvee or transport is a far cry from being able to blow up an Abrams. Don't try to change the subject. You have claimed to have some knowledge of the specs of an Abrams tank. When I pointed out that it was impossible that you could have such a thing, you tried to say that "experts" could piece it together. You've provided no evidence for any of these assertions. Israel's best tanks are Merkavas, not Abrams. The former are fine tanks, but they are not the latter."

21 were lost 16 years ago. Since then antitank technology has BY FAR out advanced tank technology and the Russians have designed weapons specifically to be able to destroy these things. They have intelligence too, ya know. Just like the Merkavas, they have weak spots. You just have to know where to hit it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmOyY4AV5jw
The american press doesn't want you to know our troops could ever be in danger but the Iraqi's were childplay.

Quote :

"Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq Article Tools Contact Our Sales Team Print This Page Email This To A Friend 20 June 2003 Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq Tim Ripley JDW Correspondent The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams). In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection. "The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable." PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq. Other US Army sources report that 14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war. Most M1 losses were attributed in the report to mechanical breakdown, or vehicles being stripped for parts or vandalised by Iraqis. There were "no reported cases" of an anti-tank guided missile being fired at any US Army vehicle. Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire. Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation. "

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml

Quote :

"You seem to assume it's a forgone conclusion that we will give them a blank check to do whatever they want."

Haven't we always?

8/7/2008 11:48:19 AM

Quote :

"I joint effort by your beloved un would be fine but never a sole us effort or a small "coalition of willing""

Well, when we went into Saudi Arabia, we went with a very large coalition, including Britain, France, several Arab countries, Pakistan, and perhaps a couple of dozen others.

Quote :

"Well if i told you how i feel about outsourcing..."

We don't even have to be talking about outsourcing. What about American companies that, say, own mines overseas? That's not outsourcing -- you can't mine in America what is not in America. What about oil wells? What about any of the other manifold US economic interests overseas that don't qualify as outsourcing?

Quote :

"It would've been to a much less degree."

And how do you know? At first, probably, yeah. But one way or the other Jews were going to keep coming in, and as soon as they had the population and the clout they could open the floodgates, and then we've got the same basic situation, just delayed a few years.

Quote :

"Applesauce and Orange juice"

Can, in fact, be compared. "Comparing" it was you do with two essentially different things that have similarities.

Quote :

"So yes, other than the holocaust and occasions of people "being mean to them" they were doing quite well."

You pick out an exception to the rule and try to tell me that the rule is the exception. Look at the Jews' situation in Eastern Europe, where most of them lived and were most oppressed until Hitler came along. Look at the history of Jews in Western Europe from the time of the diaspora up until around 1800.

Quote :

"Nope, Neil Armstrong hasn't come out and said we never went to the moon."

And Ronald Reagan didn't tell us that he let the hostages chill for a while before rescuing them.

Quote :

"Sorry if I don't have the memory of you to remember every single url I've ever visited and every author I've ever read."

I didn't ask you to remember a URL or an author. I asked you to just name a publication. Hell, you could just make one up, and you won't even do that. Foreign Affairs? Newsweek? MAD? For the love of Christ.

Quote :

"Google is not the place to look for scholarly sources but everything on google is not wrong."

I understand that. "Wrong" and "untrustworthy" are two different words.

Quote :

"21 were lost 16 years ago."

Haha, no. 21 were destroyed or damaged in the Gulf War, which, incidentally, was 17 years ago.

Of those 21 tanks:

1) At least 7 were disabled by friendly-fire
2) 6 had relatively minor damage and could continue to function with little or no repair
3) Of the 64 crew members that would have been inside this tanks, only 1 was killed and 18 wounded. In 11 cases no crew were wounded.

Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots over this. Also your al-Jazeera tape where some guys stand around a tank that may or may not be an Abrams which may or may not have been killed by enemy fire. I am positively about to shit myself in terror.

8/7/2008 4:07:30 PM

Quote :

"Well, when we went into Saudi Arabia, we went with a very large coalition, including Britain, France, several Arab countries, Pakistan, and perhaps a couple of dozen others."

Many of which are feeling the consequences as well. 18 wrongs make a right!

Quote :

"We don't even have to be talking about outsourcing. What about American companies that, say, own mines overseas? That's not outsourcing -- you can't mine in America what is not in America. What about oil wells? What about any of the other manifold US economic interests overseas that don't qualify as outsourcing?"

Those companies need to seek protection from their own governments or provide it for themselves, privately.

Quote :

"And how do you know? At first, probably, yeah. But one way or the other Jews were going to keep coming in, and as soon as they had the population and the clout they could open the floodgates, and then we've got the same basic situation, just delayed a few years."

Then we should have never helped them anyway.

Quote :

"And Ronald Reagan didn't tell us that he let the hostages chill for a while before rescuing them."

Of course a ring leader isn't going to expose the situation and incrimiate himself. Its always somebody a little lower down that was just following orders.

Quote :

"1) At least 7 were disabled by friendly-fire"

so 14. and remember. this is with pre internet technology. This is dinosaur type technology that destroyed these 14. anti tank advancements have gone bookoo since then. Taking out these tanks would be so easy for a well funded supplied group. Did you not read the atricle?

8/7/2008 4:22:04 PM