Ahmadinejad says...

[j2k4]

...""Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation...the Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191819,00.html

Sounds like a threat to me...as he persists with this provocative tack, how should the International community respond?

Let's say he uses a continuous stream of this rhetoric to gauge the will of the those who might take action.

He defies the U.N. and it's inspectors, ala Saddam.

He finds no action forthcoming, and, having managed to develop his nuclear capability sufficiently to destroy Israel, he proceeds to do just that.

What then?

Is Israel avenged?

How?

By whom?

[cpt_azad]

What then?

Is Israel avenged?

How?

By whom?
Then WWIII, or something close to it.

Most likely yes, Israel didn't got to where it is today by having a shitty military, the retaliation will be massive, and it won't just be Israel that will launch a counter-attack (if not a pre-emptive one).

Use of nuclear weapons, this won't be a conventional war.

The US? Duh.

[j2k4]

What then?

Is Israel avenged?

How?

By whom?
Then WWIII, or something close to it.

Most likely yes, Israel didn't got to where it is today by having a shitty military, the retaliation will be massive, and it won't just be Israel that will launch a counter-attack (if not a pre-emptive one).

Use of nuclear weapons, this won't be a conventional war.

The US? Duh.

Where is the U.N. in all of this?

Again, let's assume no one moves against Iran because, after all, it's just bluster and rhetoric, right?

Taking advantage of U.N. stasis, Iran eradicates Israel, per it's own stated goal.

Russia and China realize they've been had, diplomatically, and renounce their support of Iran.

Is Iran then, for lack of a better term, forfeit?

On a different tack, as some here have clearly stated, America's aim is to make Iraq it's "bitch" in the mideast.

Is it better/the same/worse if Russia and/or China makes Iraq it's "bitch"?

Harking back to the attempted Soviet subjugation of Afghanistan in 1980, who was the bad guy:

The U.S., for supporting Afghanistan, or the U.S.S.R., for it's efforts?

[cpt_azad]

Then WWIII, or something close to it.

Most likely yes, Israel didn't got to where it is today by having a shitty military, the retaliation will be massive, and it won't just be Israel that will launch a counter-attack (if not a pre-emptive one).

Use of nuclear weapons, this won't be a conventional war.

The US? Duh.

Harking back to the attempted Soviet subjugation of Afghanistan in 1980, who was the bad guy:

The U.S., for supporting Afghanistan, or the U.S.S.R., for it's efforts?

The U.S. were the good guys in that conflict, no doubt about that.

Another thing, although China and Russia have said that Iran should use uranium enrichment for civillian purposes, I have yet to read/hear of them supporting Iran completely (refer to the other thread).

[tralalala]

The UN is a joke.. absolutely pathetic - just before the 6 day war broke out in 1967, the Egyptians said to the UN forces in Gaza strip to move out, with no reason, and they went, no questions asked.. pathetic if you ask me.


If anything, Israel, US and UK would probably attack Iran before they even get a chance to launch their fighter planes with the nuclear bombs...


I read an article the other day where the person said that Russia and China are also against the nuclear abilities of Iran - Chine and Russia have vast ammounts of Shiite Muslims who are, what you would call "pestering" the people leading the country - these people cannot retaliate if Iran has nuclear abilities, as no one is to know what they would do - Mr. Mahmoud Jihad is stupid enough to use these weapons...

If he were to attack anyone, my guess is that the US, Israel, Russia and the UK would retalliate in a way that would screw Irans military forces all over.
The thing is, when is this going to happen, and how the psychological games of the pres. will affect the leaders of the nations.

[cpt_azad]

The UN is a joke.. absolutely pathetic - just before the 6 day war broke out in 1967, the Egyptians said to the UN forces in Gaza strip to move out, with no reason, and they went, no questions asked.. pathetic if you ask me.


If anything, Israel, US and UK would probably attack Iran before they even get a chance to launch their fighter planes with the nuclear bombs...


I read an article the other day where the person said that Russia and China are also against the nuclear abilities of Iran - Chine and Russia have vast ammounts of Shiite Muslims who are, what you would call "pestering" the people leading the country - these people cannot retaliate if Iran has nuclear abilities, as no one is to know what they would do - Mr. Mahmoud Jihad is stupid enough to use these weapons...

If he were to attack anyone, my guess is that the US, Israel, Russia and the UK would retalliate in a way that would screw Irans military forces all over.
The thing is, when is this going to happen, and how the psychological games of the pres. will affect the leaders of the nations.

Completely agreed, it's in Russia's best interest (think about this for a second) to prevent a full scale war from taking place, not to mention the economical boost it will gain, after all, look at their oil reserves and how much oil Russia exports, if Iran was taken out of the picture "temporarily" ala a pre-emptive strike (even if it were for a few weeks/months) it would mean a huge thing for Russia.

But money aside, I honestly think that Iran having nuclear capabilities is completely wrong and just plain threatning.

I don't know if you know this trala, but I for one do not "like" Israel as much as the next guy for the things they've done to Palestinians over the years and would like to see a peaceful co-existence b/w them.

But I will forego Israel's wrongdoings if it means that we can stop a country like Iran totally f'ing up the planet, and killing hundreds of thousands of people (which will escalate to millions once the counter-attacks begin) be it Jewish, Muslims, w/e.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and those few are Iranian leaders/military commanders that need to be taken out ASAP.

[tralalala]

I don't mind people not "liking" Israel, I would frankly be fine having the pres. of Iran say he hated us, but all the threatening is completely out of order.

I am now wondering if Israel will carry out an attach on Iran like they did on Iraq in the 80's taking out their nuclear reactors.......

[cpt_azad]

I don't mind people not "liking" Israel, I would frankly be fine having the pres. of Iran say he hated us, but all the threatening is completely out of order.

I am now wondering if Israel will carry out an attach on Iran like they did on Iraq in the 80's taking out their nuclear reactors.......

I for one would definitely support such an attack, and I'm deadset againts pre-emptive attacks. But with all due respect, this is one of those occasions where it's absolutely necessary.

But you have to remember, if Israel attacked Iran now, the retaliatory attack by Iran would be pretty massive, they do have a good number of ground troops, though I'm not sure what they'd be able to do against Israeli troops who are some of (if not) the best trained soldiers in the world.

If that happened, I'm 100% sure that the U.S. would launch their attacks (co-ordinated of course) against Iran.

Better to end it quickly and early rather than have to take action at the last second or until something happens, because then it WOULD turn into a war and it WOULD drag on for a loooong time.

[tralalala]

Indeed.

In that article it said that no attack on Iran could be taken out without the US leading, since no army has any troops, tanks, aircraft etc. like the US. Israel could donate technology and well trained troops, the UK - more arms, same about Russia, and even Chine..


As you said - better quick and early than late and sore.....

[cpt_azad]

Indeed.

In that article it said that no attack on Iran could be taken out without the US leading, since no army has any troops, tanks, aircraft etc. like the US. Israel could donate technology and well trained troops, the UK - more arms, same about Russia, and even Chine..


As you said - better quick and early than late and sore.....

Agreed word for word.

[tralalala]

Indeed.

In that article it said that no attack on Iran could be taken out without the US leading, since no army has any troops, tanks, aircraft etc. like the US. Israel could donate technology and well trained troops, the UK - more arms, same about Russia, and even Chine..


As you said - better quick and early than late and sore.....

Agreed word for word.
Wow, that's a first for me here in the seriouse discussions.. :lol:

[j2k4]

I don't believe Russia or China would support Iran if it came right down to nut-cutting time, but they are sure hanging up the process at the moment-similar to France, Germany and Russia before we went into Iraq.

BTW-North Korea was, a short while back, making just about the same noises Iran is now.

Absent Ahmadinejad's malign focus on Israel, what's the difference?

Kim Jong Il seems to have receded from our view...

Admittedly, there are a few more wildcards in play in the mideast, but when nukes are the issue, what does it matter?

Anyway, just as a curiousity and a moral exercise, let's say Iran manages to take Israel by surprise, and "annihilates" the entire nation.

How does the rest of the world respond?

[tralalala]

Well, they would bust them open bad...

Cos don't forget - if they wipe Israel out, they wipe me out :( :unsure:

[j2k4]

Well, they would bust them open bad...

Cos don't forget - if they wipe Israel out, they wipe me out :( :unsure:

We wouldn't want that, Rafi. :)

It's just an exercise.

I just find myself wondering, given the lack of will demonstrated at certain times, and in certain places, what international sentiment would be if such an incident ever occurred.

There are those who would say, what's done is done, and that to seek revenge (for it's own sake) would be wrong.

There are quarters which argue against object lessons, when the whole of our existence in this world is nothing but a series of them.

There are things people should fear to do, even never having done them.

The nuclear question has been previously explored, has it not?

Isn't it ironic that we find ourselves continuously destabilized by the propagation of the technology, which can be of tremendous benefit when used for things like energy production, but is primarily pursued as a weapon?

Wouldn't you agree our fear has more to do with human foibles than the technology itself?

[tralalala]

I guess so, but let us not forget that with a raging Muslim country, that is being fired up by incredulouse statements by it's government, will probably feel that it is thier" holy job" to destroy Israel, attack the west, and try to make the Muslim world a body of fear and power over the world.. no?

[vidcc]

why don't we just move isreal to the USA?

We could give them Texas, and like we do with our own "historic" stuff we could just move all the "holy stuff". Put the wailing wall along the border to keep out illegal immigrants.

[j2k4]

I guess so, but let us not forget that with a raging Muslim country, that is being fired up by incredulouse statements by it's government, will probably feel that it is thier" holy job" to destroy Israel, attack the west, and try to make the Muslim world a body of fear and power over the world.. no?

That would seem to be the fear, at least.

Where the rubber meets the road, however, who knows?

Prior to the war, Iran was presented as being on the verge of revolution; I don't think (in three short years) Iran has imbued it's citizenry top to bottom with such expeditionary Islamist fervor as is being shouted from Ahmadinejad's pulpit, but again, we're talking nukes, right?

What the people think doesn't matter, and the radicals like Ahmadinejad don't regard the people as innocents, but as tools to be used in his "war against the infidel".

It is precisely this which allows him to view Non-Islam peoples with utter contempt.

The only surely safe road is pre-emption, and that's where the other difficulties arise.

We can piss about for years (as with Iraq), and suddenly it is too late.

[j2k4]

why don't we just move isreal to the USA?

We could give them Texas, and like we do with our own "historic" stuff we could just move all the "holy stuff". Put the wailing wall along the border to keep out illegal immigrants.

Feeling silly today, aren't we?

While we're at it, let's re-locate North Korea, Iran, Syria, et.al., to Antarctica.

Put it on Kofi Annan's tab; we'll pay our share.

BTW-why don't "we" learn how to spell "Israel"? :P

[vidcc]

why don't we just move isreal to the USA?

We could give them Texas, and like we do with our own "historic" stuff we could just move all the "holy stuff". Put the wailing wall along the border to keep out illegal immigrants.

Feeling silly today, aren't we?

While we're at it, let's re-locate North Korea, Iran, Syria, et.al., to Antarctica.

Put it on Kofi Annan's tab; we'll pay our share.
Silly as it is what about that idea is sillier than forcing a region to give up its land then have the rest of the world suffer the resulting wars?

Isreal is stood on stolen land, "North Korea, Iran, Syria, et.al.," are not.

[j2k4]

Feeling silly today, aren't we?

While we're at it, let's re-locate North Korea, Iran, Syria, et.al., to Antarctica.

Put it on Kofi Annan's tab; we'll pay our share.
Silly as it is what about that idea is sillier than forcing a region to give up its land then have the rest of the world suffer the resulting wars?

Isreal is stood on stolen land, "North Korea, Iran, Syria, et.al.," are not.

All land has been stolen from someone, vid.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, it is merely a question of whose story you believe...three major religions claim Jerusalem as Mecca.

Who has the best claim?

Tell us, please.

[vidcc]

All land has been stolen from someone, vid.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, it is merely a question of whose story you believe...three major religions claim Jerusalem as Mecca.

Who has the best claim?

Tell us, please.

I don't believe either "story" I don't believe that anyone has the right to claim land based on their own version of religion. I guess you do though.
Just to chew the fat, let's say that there is a holy site for islam in the USA. just for islam. Do they have the right to take that land?.

edit: as you point out 3 religions claim jerusalem..... why do you feel the jews have a greater cliam.?

Your view of Isreal goes against everything you stand for in the USA regarding settling in a land. You feel that the jews had a right to that land and the owners had to step aside and allow it, yet if anyone wishes to come to the USA they have to assimulate to us. I appreciate there is a huge gap between immigration of individuals and creating a new nation but it was in essence just mass immigration.

[tralalala]

Cos the Jews clamied it holy first.


And while we're at it - I believe that the Indians were in the USA first...? :rolleyes: plus, why not move all gulf and arab countries to Antarctica, and as a bonus - move the US to the gulf area - that way you not only isolate the Arabs, you get loads of free oil too!! yippeeeee....


NOT :frusty:

[j2k4]

All land has been stolen from someone, vid.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, it is merely a question of whose story you believe...three major religions claim Jerusalem as Mecca.

Who has the best claim?

Tell us, please.

I don't believe either "story" I don't believe that anyone has the right to claim land based on their own version of religion. I guess you do though.
Just to chew the fat, let's say that there is a holy site for islam in the USA. just for islam. Do they have the right to take that land?.

edit: as you point out 3 religions claim jerusalem..... why do you feel the jews have a greater cliam.?

I don't feel history (or more correctly, the various recollections of it) allows us to answer that, at least to the satisfaction of the conflicted parties; I do know, however, that Islam is the only one that wishes the other two to be annihilated/exterminated.

If Israel were not circumstantially required to defend it's survival, I can't see any reason they would deny proper access, but things are not as we wish them to be, are they?

Now, why do you (in the interest of serving best those whose claim you feel most legitimate) choose to, in effect, sanction the Islamist aim of Israeli extermination?

[vidcc]

Cos the Jews clamied it holy first.
i already addressed that,
I don't believe that anyone has the right to claim land based on their own version of religion.

And while we're at it - I believe that the Indians were in the USA first...? :rolleyes:
no arguement from me there, I am having a great time watching these right wingers foaming at the mouth because they think immigrants want to take over the usa. Native americans must be splitting their sides with laughter.




plus, why not move all gulf and arab countries to Antarctica, and as a bonus - move the US to the gulf area - that way you not only isolate the Arabs, you get loads of free oil too!! yippeeeee....


NOT :frusty:are these lands in disputed ownership?

[vidcc]

Now, why do you (in the interest of serving best those whose claim you feel most legitimate) choose to, in effect, sanction the Islamist aim of Israeli extermination?

I don't

[j2k4]

Now, why do you (in the interest of serving best those whose claim you feel most legitimate) choose to, in effect, sanction the Islamist aim of Israeli extermination?

I don't

Then qualify what you say with reason.

Israel's claim is no less legitimate than the Palestinians, and your first best move would be to acknowledge the fact before you move on to other things.

As I've said, if Israel weren't busy ensuring it's own survival, perhaps there would be peace in the region, but the Palestinians want to "push them into the Red Sea".

What if Israel made a similar claim of intent?

[vidcc]

I take neither side on the issue over the other. I don't think the people of israel should be destroyed but I don't feel they have a legitimate claim of ownership of the land over the palestinians. The creation of Israel was IMO a mistaken attempt to solve another problem and just made things worse.


As I've said, if Israel weren't busy ensuring it's own survival, perhaps there would be peace in the region, but the Palestinians want to "push them into the Red Sea".

What if Israel made a similar claim of intent?

To me this is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. Again I don't side with one or the other

[tralalala]

So what to do? Where do the Israelis go if not Israel???
I mean, the Holocaust, as sad as it may be, proved that the Jews need a land of their own, don't they?

And yes.. apparently, Antarctica is partly owned by.. ummm, I think 12 states if I am not mistaken.... So yes, it's also disputed ownership

[vidcc]

So what to do? Where do the Israelis go if not Israel???
I mean, the Holocaust, as sad as it may be, proved that the Jews need a land of their own, don't they?

Well then why not take up my offer of texas? you wouldn't have to worry about persecution in the USA would you? But on that point of land to escape persecution, were the chances of utopia in that region of the world greater or less likely?


And yes.. apparently, Antarctica is partly owned by.. ummm, I think 12 states if I am not mistaken.... So yes, it's also disputed ownership Am I correct in thinking that you are suggesting moving undisputed arab nations into disputed land? for what reason?

[j2k4]

Well then why not take up my offer of texas? you wouldn't have to worry about persecution in the USA would you? But on that point of land to escape persecution, were the chances of utopia in that region of the world greater or less likely?


Uh-oh.

He's serious, Rafi. :rolleyes:

On that same silly-ass point, why do you suppose no one has offered sanctuary to the Palestinians, vid?

They could move as well...

[vidcc]

On that same silly-ass point, why do you suppose no one has offered sanctuary to the Palestinians, vid?

They could move as well...
tralalala made the point that the jews needed sanctuary, I offered it to them here. Would you object to a self governing state of Israel being set up on US soil?

[j2k4]

On that same silly-ass point, why do you suppose no one has offered sanctuary to the Palestinians, vid?

They could move as well...
tralalala made the point that the jews needed sanctuary, I offered it to them here. Would you object to a self governing state of Israel being set up on US soil?

You offered the sanctuary before Rafi claimed any need.

As to your last, if that were at all possible, I would welcome them with open arms.

They would, of course, be required to submit to the immigration process, if for no other reason than as an example to the Mexicans, who feel no need.

[tralalala]

This is stupid.. it's pretty obviouse that that kind of solution is impossible and silly...

Thing is, I don't think the Stae of Israel can and would be moved even if it were possible.. don't you?

[thewizeard]

..it's not even on the cards, Tralalala...and this is not about Israel...this is about a very dangerous man indeed and let's not forget Korea.

Time for the Shah.

[vidcc]

tralalala made the point that the jews needed sanctuary, I offered it to them here. Would you object to a self governing state of Israel being set up on US soil?

You offered the sanctuary before Rafi claimed any need.

As to your last, if that were at all possible, I would welcome them with open arms.

They would, of course, be required to submit to the immigration process, if for no other reason than as an example to the Mexicans, who feel no need.

I'm not offering them immigration into the USA, I am offering them their own land....texas, but it could be any other state, doesn't matter which one. It would mean we have to give up any rights to that land and they would have self determination. They would not become US citizens and any US citizen that lived in that state would either have to become a citizen of Israel or move out. Of course they could remain there as a permanent resident but wouldn't be able to vote etc.

Forgetting the fact that this is just chewing fat, would this idea still acceptable in theory?

[j2k4]

You offered the sanctuary before Rafi claimed any need.

As to your last, if that were at all possible, I would welcome them with open arms.

They would, of course, be required to submit to the immigration process, if for no other reason than as an example to the Mexicans, who feel no need.

I'm not offering them immigration into the USA, I am offering them their own land....texas, but it could be any other state, doesn't matter which one. It would mean we have to give up any rights to that land and they would have self determination. They would not become US citizens and any US citizen that lived in that state would either have to become a citizen of Israel or move out. Of course they could remain there as a permanent resident but wouldn't be able to vote etc.

Forgetting the fact that this is just chewing fat, would this idea still acceptable in theory?

Acceptable to whom?

Me?

I would say no, because I figure it should work the way it is.

You'd never get an Israeli to buy the idea, either-not even in a speculative manner such as this.

In any case, the Israelis have proven, for the last 58 years, that they will not cooperate in their self-destruction.

That the U.S. has aided them in their efforts to survive is to it's credit.

[vidcc]

The point I am getting at is that we, or at least many of us would not accept our land being occupied, given away, divided or whatever (as you appear to say). Yet the USA generally sides with Israel on this and insists that they have every right to be there and are only defending themselves.

This wasn't a mutual agreement of the natives, this was implemented as a solution to a problem and caused more problems than before.

[thewizeard]

..well you better ask permission from the native Americans before you give anything away, after all, it's not yours to give..

[tralalala]

@thewizard - correct.. I stated that before...


@vid: Even if you were to do something about the stolen land of Israel, you have over 80% Jews in the land that makes up the State of Israel... How you gonna move that from there? How are the Arabs gonna move us out??

[vidcc]

@vid: Even if you were to do something about the stolen land of Israel, you have over 80% Jews in the land that makes up the State of Israel... How you gonna move that from there? How are the Arabs gonna move us out??

Ever heard of ship planes trains and automobiles? You wouldn't be forced to move, you could live where you are right now if you want to take that chance.

Of course (as I have mentioned several times) it's just fat chewing and it's not likely or viable. If land on the US was taken for such reasons then the US citizens would probably be acting like the arabs right now. (before anyone says "we are different we wouldn't commit acts of terrorism" remember that only a small percentage of the arabs do, even if the others think it's justified)

You are in an area where many of the original owners are still alive, the creation of Israel made a bad situation worse. Israel (as a nation) is not innocent and playing the victim isn't justified.

On the flip side, killing innocent people through acts of terrorism isn't justified either (this goes for both sides)

I don't favour one side over the other, but I can see cause and effect and I am not going to ignore that just because it goes against popular opinion.




@thewizard -see post #24, but if it bothers you so much, you could put it in England..... after all the hymn suggests you build Jerusalem "In England's green and pleasant land" ;)

[tralalala]

Well, if you look at it this way - the arabs made every possible mistake in the creeation of Israel - originally, in 1947, The Jewish part of Israel was meant to be less than a third of what it is today, and the arabs would have had the rest. Amazingly, the Jews had actually agreed to this plan. The arabs, however, made the mistake of wanting more and more, so they dumped that thought, and so the war of independance broke out - what happened since is just history... But look at it like this - had the arabs been less ignorant, they would have had a huge part of Israel, and by now probably would have managed to drive all Jews out of here, but again, as I said - they made every possible mistake......

[j2k4]

Well, if you look at it this way - the arabs made every possible mistake in the creeation of Israel - originally, in 1947, The Jewish part of Israel was meant to be less than a third of what it is today, and the arabs would have had the rest. Amazingly, the Jews had actually agreed to this plan. The arabs, however, made the mistake of wanting more and more, so they dumped that thought, and so the war of independance broke out - what happened since is just history... But look at it like this - had the arabs been less ignorant, they would have had a huge part of Israel, and by now probably would have managed to drive all Jews out of here, but again, as I said - they made every possible mistake......

Well, vid's idea, distilled to it's essence, seems to be that Israel has no legitimate claim to Jerusalem or, indeed, any land in the mideast.

Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)

[vidcc]

Well, vid's idea, distilled to it's essence, seems to be that Israel has no legitimate claim to Jerusalem or, indeed, any land in the mideast.
No.

I am saying they have no claim to the land as theirs and only theirs. They have no claim to an independent land take and certainly I don't accept the idea that they had the right to settle there based on religion.

Just as you said with my idea, you would welcome the israel settlers into the USA if they abided by our immigration rules, you would not accept them having their own self ruled independent state within the US..... see my point yet? Your own beliefs are assimulate not seperate (from what you have posted on US immigration)

If you would prefer let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???



Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)
The whole point is about the problem creating Israel caused. Obviously the idea is many decades too late but what would the situation be if israel had been created in a less volatile part of the world to begin with? Remember I reject any notion of claim to land based on religion.

@ tralalalalaa.

I fail to see what Size has to do with it. There was no agreement to begin with so the objection would be there if it's one square mile or one million.
That's like argueing that someone is silly for objecting to a squatter living in your garden shed when later several more take over the entire home.

[tralalala]

Well, as you tried to argue - if we were to go by your claims, there is no land within Israel that can be given to anyone.. as any of the peoples that live here are here on religiouse basis.

What about Iraq/Saudi Arabia?? Isn't that where Abraham started from1? Syria?? There is no end to the examples I can give for these types of lands...... In theory - the whole mideast should be taken and made international land, for so many religions passed through there...!!

[vidcc]

Well, as you tried to argue - if we were to go by your claims, there is no land within Israel that can be given to anyone.. as any of the peoples that live here are here on religiouse basis.

What about Iraq/Saudi Arabia?? Isn't that where Abraham started from1? Syria?? There is no end to the examples I can give for these types of lands...... In theory - the whole mideast should be taken and made international land, for so many religions passed through there...!!
You are missing the point.
I am not saying people cannot live there, I am saying that they shouldn't have taken land and created their own country on someone elses land based on religion( religion is the reason they wanted that particular land). If they wanted to settle in that part of the world, fine.

The land shouldn't have been "given" to anyone, it belonged to the people that lived there. Creating Israel to separate arabs from jews and give jews their own "country" just caused more problems than the problem they tried to solve.

There is a difference between countries that develope religions and countries that are created because of religions.

[j2k4]

No.

I am saying they have no claim to the land as theirs and only theirs. They have no claim to an independent land take and certainly I don't accept the idea that they had the right to settle there based on religion.

Just as you said with my idea, you would welcome the israel settlers into the USA if they abided by our immigration rules, you would not accept them having their own self ruled independent state within the US..... see my point yet? Your own beliefs are assimulate not seperate (from what you have posted on US immigration)

If you would prefer let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

You are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.


Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)
The whole point is about the problem creating Israel caused. Obviously the idea is many decades too late but what would the situation be if israel had been created in a less volatile part of the world to begin with? Remember I reject any notion of claim to land based on religion.


Sorry, but your notion holds no water in the scenario, as you are dealing with people who do hold religious beliefs, and whose beliefs inform the desirability of land for settlement.

Israel set up shop where it did for self-evident reasons; it is not for you to declare those reasons invalid.

The entire issue revolves around this religious aspect.

[vidcc]

Well then they can't complain if those that don't share their religion are upset when their land is taken.


ou are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.

But Israel wasn't created under this premise.

My scenario is based on comprable terms to what the arabs had placed upon them., You never did answer my question about the acceptability of a self ruling muslim country within US land.

[j2k4]

Well then they can't complain if those that don't share their religion are upset when their land is taken.


ou are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.

But Israel wasn't created under this premise.

My scenario is based on comprable terms to what the arabs had placed upon them., You never did answer my question about the acceptability of a self ruling muslim country within US land.

Oh, I think I did, a few posts back...

[vidcc]

Oh, I think I did, a few posts back... No you didn't, you wrote about disasters on foriegn land. my question was


let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

for example, the "nation of islam" (americans) decides it has had enough of all these christians etc. and wants it's own country within the US..... you can date it back to the days of Malcom X but it's happening today.

[j2k4]

No you didn't, you wrote about disasters on foriegn land. my question was


let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

for example, the "nation of islam" (americans) decides it has had enough of all these christians etc. and wants it's own country within the US..... you can date it back to the days of Malcom X but it's happening today.

So, then your fantasy is one merely based on the preference of the party in question?

Then my answer would be "no", in either case.

Do you think any of the Holyland would have been made available to transient/homeless Arabs, after WWII?

Would there have been such a strong objection to any but the Jews?

[vidcc]

So, then your fantasy is one merely based on the preference of the party in question?

Then my answer would be "no", in either case. Then why do you expect the arabs to accept Israel?


Do you think any of the Holyland would have been made available to transient/homeless Arabs, after WWII?

Would there have been such a strong objection to any but the Jews?

I have no objection to anyone settling in land, as immigrants, what (and I repeat) my point is about taking over that land and creating a country.

I care not if they are jews, muslims scientologists, christians or followers of the spaghetti monster.....

[Biggles]

I think we have to remember that Ahmadinejad plays as much to an Iranian audience as he does a World one.

He knows perfectly well that attempting to wipe Israel from the face of the globe would bring certain ruin to Iran but the thought of it plays well to the hardliners. Likewise Iran has been industrialising since the days of the Shah and civilian nuclear energy has been in the pipeline there for two decades or more.

It is unlikely that Iran will be attacked and it is probable that they will have civilian nuclear power. These two things would probably have happened regardless. Ahmadinejad is striking the pose that his leadership is bringing these things to fruition. To a small degree he is and he seems to determined to milk it for all its worth.

However, there is a political opposition in Iran and his hardline rhetoric plays no better with them than it does with us - or, for that matter, no better than the hardline rhetoric of other leaders goes down with the political opposition in their respective countries either. :shifty:

[j2k4]

I think we have to remember that Ahmadinejad plays as much to an Iranian audience as he does a World one.

He knows perfectly well that attempting to wipe Israel from the face of the globe would bring certain ruin to Iran but the thought of it plays well to the hardliners. Likewise Iran has been industrialising since the days of the Shah and civilian nuclear energy has been in the pipeline there for two decades or more.

It is unlikely that Iran will be attacked and it is probable that they will have civilian nuclear power. These two things would probably have happened regardless. Ahmadinejad is striking the pose that his leadership is bringing these things to fruition. To a small degree he is and he seems to determined to milk it for all its worth.

However, there is a political opposition in Iran and his hardline rhetoric plays no better with them than it does with us - or, for that matter, no better than the hardline rhetoric of other leaders goes down with the political opposition in their respective countries either. :shifty:

I agree with your post completely, Les; the only real risk seems to be whether or not someone (Israel?) jumps the shark with this character.

His rhetoric is so outrageous and inane as to almost be dismissed out of hand, but he could make his own citizenry nervous unto instability, and who knows what would happen then?

It's sure to be a mess; question is, do we try to manage it now, or later?

[Tempestv]

it is quite obvious that it would be suicide for Iran or DPRK to fire a nuke at anybody. it would be utter suicide. there is no way that they could cripple even one country, and even if they did, between the United States, Russia, China, Israel and all the European Countrys, even if you crippled any one of them, there is still going to be a damn big army aimed at you. However, last I heard, Kim Jong Il isn't exactly right in the head, and with Iraq serving as an example of a preemptive strike on the possablity of WMD, slinging nuclear threats around might not be the most sane idea, so the sanity of Ahmadinejad might be in question. So, while attacking anyone with nuclear weapons might be a really bad idea, we have to remember what people have their fingers on the button. I would consider Iran and the DPRK's threats quite valid.

While I side away from the Iraq war, the main difference between Iraq and Iran or DPRK is Iraq was saying "we don't have weapons". Iran and DPRK are saying "we have or will have weapons and we wish to use them."

[LegendaryU2K]

I still say people need to chill more, you know just relax and eat some good foot, have sex, play xbox, read the bible or Quran, look out the window, do something hahaha.

I understand that wars and violence in general will continue to happen unto the end of this world ( to a point ), but still its time to say " hey i'm sick of fighting, lets just relax ".

But i'm dreaming right?

[Barbarossa]

Antarctica is going to be fucking lovely in a couple of hundred years, whereas alot of the world will be underwater.

:unsure:

[thewizeard]

..I should have read the whole thread.. :) It hardly seems possible that a bankrupt nation is capable of helping anyone sort their problems out.. Also it's a pity this thread is centring in on Israel.

America, now seems ready to take on Iran, possibly because their (Iran's) missiles still can't reach the US. That's a different matter for Europe. North Korea can reach the US though.. A preemptive attack is on the cards plunging the middle - east into turmoil. I expect Israel to act soon.

[cpt_azad]

hat's a different matter for Europe. North Korea can reach the US though


And exactly what kind of resources and or valuables are there in North Korea? The US has no interest in helping bring about democracy to countries, and I can even say that to some degree any democratic country doesn't really care about that, as long as there is something in it for them. If you know what I mean.

[thewizeard]

Then we may all hope..no pray, That North Korea doesn't find natural oil within its territory

[cpt_azad]

Then we may all hope..no pray, That North Korea doesn't find natural oil within its territory

Sure, whatever floats your boat. Chances of that happening anyway are like one in a billion.

[j2k4]

hat's a different matter for Europe. North Korea can reach the US though


And exactly what kind of resources and or valuables are there in North Korea? The US has no interest in helping bring about democracy to countries, and I can even say that to some degree any democratic country doesn't really care about that, as long as there is something in it for them. If you know what I mean.

Actually, you might re-phrase that, something along the lines of:

The U.S. is disposed to interject or insinuate itself in geographic areas wherein are natural stores of materials essential to the social/economic/political stability of most of the world.

There is an even greater motive than the selfish one you are so quick to attribute to the U.S., you see? :)

[cpt_azad]

And exactly what kind of resources and or valuables are there in North Korea? The US has no interest in helping bring about democracy to countries, and I can even say that to some degree any democratic country doesn't really care about that, as long as there is something in it for them. If you know what I mean.
Actually, you might re-phrase that, something along the lines of:

The U.S. is disposed to interject or insinuate itself in geographic areas wherein are natural stores of materials essential to the social/economic/political stability of most of the world.

There is an even greater motive than the selfish one you are so quick to attribute to the U.S., you see? :)
Oh I see now, the U.S. helps better the world by "borrowing" natural resources and selling it TO the world at a "minimal" cost :)

:no2:

This doesn't apply to just the U.S. by the way (I only put U.S. in there b/c j2 put it in his post, yes I attributed the US w/ that kind of policy and state of mind, however I also said that goes for any country with a vast military and or economic power, the rich just keep on getting richer :) )

[Biggles]

I rather liked the cartoon in the Glasgow Herald the other day.

Entitled "ENRICHMENT"

It depicted Ahmadinejad happily repricing oil barrels from 60 dollars to 72 dollars.

It might not all be as crazy as it seems :dry: