Who Lost Iraq? by Charles Krauthammer 11/04/2011162
CommentsWASHINGTON -- Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.
Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world's only democracy.
He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the American military presence in Iraq will be liquidated.
I lol'd seriously hard at the comments. My favourite one, right at the top:
"Obama did not fail, he brilliantly succeded in his goal:
Middle East is in turmoil, tyranny wins, America humiliated, Christians are on the run, Muslims prevail. Freedom, capitalism and white race are Obama's only enemies (that's what he was taught by Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky). "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is why he sides with our enemies.
This was the goal of this evil shrewd maniac from the very beginning. I know, it is hard, but once you realize it, all facts perfectly line up with reality.
It is not Obama, it is American people who blew it in November 2008. "
I can't believe these people actually exist. Right wing websites aren't great sources of information.
1. Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) (sent advisors 1955-61)
2. John F. Kennedy (Democrat) (increased involvement of CIA and US ambassadors)
3. Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) (after Tonkin Gulf incident, sent US combat troops 1964)
4. Richard Nixon (Republican) (negotiated treaty 1973, withdrew troops, allowing collapse of the South)
5. Gerald Ford (Republican) (with funds cut off, declared the US war ended April 23, 1975)
This, of course is completely ignoring that the parties were very different at that time than they are now.
Phanatik wrote:He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month.
Well...yeah. While there have been some shining successes, his foreign policy is like a bulldozer.
"Hey, we killed Bin Laden!" ("oh, and pissed off Pakistan")
"Hey, we dropped Ghadafi!" ("and tread all over the war powers act")
"Look, we took out Anwar al-Awlaki!" ("due process? What's that?")
Anyone who praises this guy as an improvement over Bush's foreign policy is either a fool or a partisan hack. Possibly both.
Ahtman wrote:You aren't even trying anymore are you Phan?
Not really sure what this means.
I know that the Vietnam War was won, and then the democrats cut off funding to our allies, the North attacked again and overran the country, and then millions of vietnamese died.
US needs to get out of all the foreign countries we're in (save Afghanistan, that place is messed up). We aren't involved. We're in debt. We should just get out of those wars, spend some of the money normally spent on them on home defense instead and spend the rest on various underfunded programs (like the school system). Once we're a stable, powerful and successful nation maybe we could consider getting back involved in that sort of stuff. And yeah, I know my opinion is somewhat controversial and insane.
STOP ENDING YOUR POSTS AS IF THEY'RE LETTERS GOD DAMN YOU!!!
Also, I think Ahtman's meaning is pretty clear. You consistently post right-wing views in OT, asserting that everything is the fault of the Democrats, with full knowledge that it'll stir up a crapstorm. Then when people argue back you refuse to listen and repeat the same refuted points over and over until the thread is locked. Posting a link to an article written from an entirely Conservative point of view as if it's undeniable fact is just one in a long line of cases.
Because complex social, economic and religious interactions involving possibly tens of thousands of negotiators, administrators, policy makers, advisers, etc, etc, can all be subverted or messed up by a single person...
By the way, I have some pyramids that I want to sell you...
I don't get how some folks can quote/link Rachel Maddow and she's a "partisan hack".
Yet we're expected to take Charles Krauthammer as credible? Really?
TrollPie wrote:STOP ENDING YOUR POSTS AS IF THEY'RE LETTERS GOD DAMN YOU!!!
Also, I think Ahtman's meaning is pretty clear. You consistently post right-wing views in OT, asserting that everything is the fault of the Democrats, with full knowledge that it'll stir up a crapstorm. Then when people argue back you refuse to listen and repeat the same refuted points over and over until the thread is locked. Posting a link to an article written from an entirely Conservative point of view as if it's undeniable fact is just one in a long line of cases.
@Biccat - It's just a joke.
Who knows what passes for civility in The Land of Crystal Doom (really? Crystal Doom? and you're going to lecture me?), but as the internet lacks the normal cues of FTF discourse, I like to end my posts on a positive note to show that though we may disagree, it's all adult conversation.
This is OFF-TOPIC, so you can post almost anything you want. Did this confuse you?
What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.? Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing? Careful, we might think you are full of sh...something.
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
Regards, and have a nice day...
P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen. Perhaps you are more used to those paragons of journalistic virtue Politco people?
Phanatik wrote:What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.?
No, but it is surprising that people think they can post essentially rubbish with no factual content and pass it off as some kind of revelatory expose without people realising they are posting rubbish
Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing? Careful, we might think you are full of sh...something.
If the lefties all jumped off a bridge, would you want to jump off too?
Why not try to elevate politics out of the school yard, eh?
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
Really don't know if you are just trolling this...
Phanatik wrote:This is OFF-TOPIC, so you can post almost anything you want. Did this confuse you?
Normal forum rules still apply. I consider it impolite to say "Democrats lose yet another war." as if it's the fault of every democrat alive that politicians are incompetent.
What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.? Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing?
I never suggested lefties don't do the same thing. Quoting an extremely biased report to support your side of the arguement is idiotic for a number of obvious reasons, no matter what it's biased against.
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
So what you're saying is, you believe all leftist views to be undeniably incorrect and nothing will change your mind. Then when people disagree with you you just say it's them evil Dumbocrats censoring anything that disagrees with them with shockingly obvious hypocrisy.
Phanatik wrote:This is OFF-TOPIC, so you can post almost anything you want. Did this confuse you?
Normal forum rules still apply. I consider it impolite to say "Democrats lose yet another war." as if it's the fault of every democrat alive that politicians are incompetent.
What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.? Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing?
I never suggested lefties don't do the same thing. Quoting an extremely biased report to support your side of the arguement is idiotic for a number of obvious reasons, no matter what it's biased against.
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
So what you're saying is, you believe all leftist views to be undeniably incorrect and nothing will change your mind. Then when people disagree with you you just say it's them evil Dumbocrats censoring anything that disagrees with them with shockingly obvious hypocrisy.
When you climb down off your high horse tied up in front of your glass house to criticize someone on the left for doing the same thing, I will give your criticism credence. I won't hold my breath while waiting though...
I don't think I ever used the phrase "them evil dumbocrats" at any time. I have more self respect than that...
Lost the war over a SOFA agreement...what a croak. From what I understand their biggest tie up was US would not reliquish a soldier to face a Iraq court for something he/she did while on mission. They should be more worry when Iraq more then likely blow up with tribal groups go to war with each
SilverMK2 wrote:Why not try to elevate politics out of the school yard, eh?
Because his politics are as nuanced as seeing the world as either only Right or 'Lefty' with both sides existing only as extremes, and only his side is absolutely right no matter what.
Phanatik wrote:
When you climb down off your high horse tied up in front of your glass house to criticize someone on the left for doing the same thing, I will give your criticism credence. I won't hold my breath while waiting though...
Plenty of people on the left do the same thing. Seth MacFarlane, for example, constantly criticises Republicans for seeming to spend all their time hating without realising he's doing the exact same thing, on top of being an arrogant dick. But this is your thread, and that's not relevent at the moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:Why not try to elevate politics out of the school yard, eh?
Because his politics are as nuanced as seeing the world as either only Right or 'Lefty' with both sides existing only as extremes, and only his side is absolutely right no matter what.
He pretty much said exactly that himself. I can't believe I wasted my 1000th post in this thread.
Phanatik wrote:
Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted. Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
One could say the same about the right.
Phanatik wrote: P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's pretty easy to recognise leftist views because you can just see they are wrong and therefore are clearly leftist.
At first I didn't understand Phanatik, but then Kilkrazy put his opinion in simple views that I could understand. Thanks Kilkrazy, its clear why you're a mod.
Phanatik wrote:What is surprising about people posting links to stuff that supports their pov, argument, etc.? Are you suggesting I'm the first to do this? Are you suggesting that lefties DON'T do the same thing? Careful, we might think you are full of sh...something.
Some "lefties" (as you call us) do that. That does not mean the "lefties" who don't post links to opinion choked articles have to sit by quietly and agree that its a good thing to do that.
Phanatik wrote:Despite the lefty propensity to censorship of anything that doesn't agree with them, simply stating that facts/points of view they don't agree with are wrong doesn't make them wrong, or are refuted.
MASSIVE GENERALIZATION ALERT! WEE WOO WEE WOO! Again, not all "lefties" do that and those that do are not very well respected. In fact, a lot of "lefties" are opposed to censorship, such as the "lefties" who supported the Ten Amendments (which includes freedom of speech, as you already know) along with the right wing people who supported it as well.
Phanatik wrote:Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
"Lefties" are wrong about everything? Are you on crack or something? (No, that is not an actual question. I am just saying that to convey my opinion that you are acting like a drug addled lunatic.) Were Bill Clinton's economic policies wrong despite the fact that under his presidency our economy only went up and up? Was Franklin Roosevelt wrong when he started building up the US's armory prior to WW2? I don't expect a good answer from you considering you're going to tell me I got the facts wrong or something (despite the fact that I checked them on Wikipedia and additional websites) but I felt like stating that anyways.
Phanatik wrote:Also, lefties are wrong on just about everything they believe in, and so will always find it hard to convince me of anything short of the Date or time of day.
For someone who claims that us "lefties" censor or ignore everything we don't agree with, you sure are full of yourself.
Monster Rain wrote:I actually don't know what you're referring to.
Why, the greatest thing since forever: Conservipedia. Cause everything else is just lies and slander
It says that John F. Kennedy was a conservative, Obama supports a complete ban on all hand guns regardless of circumstances, he wants to teach Kindergarteners about safe sex and that Hillary Clinton illegally wiretapped Bill Clinton's political opponents in 1992. Are you sure that website wasn't made by trolls?
May I propose the article on Regan (where he is given all the credit for everything) and the FDR article (where he's the devil)? Personally, I find Conservipedia to be a wonderful source of entertainment
Oh my god. It says that Nazis are left wing and that wikipedia is lying when it states they are extremist right wing people. Because nothing says extreme leftists like low taxes and a small national government.
Though I would agree there is a lot of bias in what gets presented on Wikipedia, the idea that the bias is perpetuated by any single political perspective is absurd.
The weirdest thing about Conservepedia, is that there actually isn't that much factual inaccuracy per se. The user just seem to have a very... interesting... take on the facts XD And boy is it hilarious
Melissia wrote:I find it more brainhurt than amusing...
I don't know. I love the Regan article just because he gets the credit for everything awesome that happened in the 70's to the 90's in it (including the collapse of the USSR). Likewise, they refer to Bush as the 'Liberator' of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's just what they say that I find so amusing because their interpretation of the world is so patently false that I can't help but laugh at it.
That's not even getting started on the Conservative Bible project, which is just so many levels of sweet delicious fail They removed "Forgive them father for they know not what they do" because it is a Liberal conspiracy and only appears in Mark. If I went though the Gospels alone and removed everything that only exists in one of them as a 'liberal conspiracy' there'd barely be any Gospel left and I'd pretty much delete all of John
Its just... too... stupid *begins laughing*
EDIT: You think no one is this dumb and then you go to Conservapedia and realize there really are people that dumb. Likewise Liberapedia. Not as funny but still golden! Less funny cause I think they get things wrong on purpose just to spoof Conservapedia.
We're not even in election and Fox with other news center are saying its going to be vicious. Something similiar to this viciousness "Offers Haterade to everyone"
EDIT
Yes I watch Fox news since they are fair and balance...and the NUMBA WUN news sourse
LoneLictor wrote:
"Lefties" are wrong about everything? Are you on crack or something? (No, that is not an actual question. I am just saying that to convey my opinion that you are acting like a drug addled lunatic.) Were Bill Clinton's economic policies wrong despite the fact that under his presidency our economy only went up and up? Was Franklin Roosevelt wrong when he started building up the US's armory prior to WW2? I don't expect a good answer from you considering you're going to tell me I got the facts wrong or something (despite the fact that I checked them on Wikipedia and additional websites) but I felt like stating that anyways.
Bill Clinton benefited from the boom created by Ronald Reagan. If a bonobo were sitting in the Oval Office from 92-00, would you continue to think fondly of yesteryear? Because it would not have mattered. Plus, the republicans took control of congress and forced good policies on the bonobo, er, First Philanderer, er, Clinton.
FDR prolonged/created the Great Depression by all of his policies. It would have only been a recession otherwise. Obama is following in FDR's footsteps, in more ways than one. Also, FDR was a liar and his family used the White House to benefit personally. They made millions. His one bright light was that he was a Navy man.
Phanatik wrote:
I know that the Vietnam War was won, and then the democrats cut off funding to our allies, the North attacked again and overran the country, and then millions of vietnamese died.
Is that trying?
Well, its trying to do something, I believe there's a term for it: revisionism.
Though, quite honestly, given that revisionism generally at least involves some attempt to generate agreement with indisputable fact, I think the emphasis here should be placed on "trying" rather than "revisionism".
The Tet offensive didn't end the Vietnam War, nor was it even a military victory for the Vietnamese. It was, however, a public relations nightmare and it was ultimately the domestic opinion of the war that ended it; along with the Nixon Administration's emphasis on detente over containment.
dogma wrote:Well, its trying to do something, I believe there's a term for it: revisionism.
Revisionism (despite it's negative implications in common usage) is a standard part of the process of history. History is 'revised' almost constantly.
I believe Phanatik has possibly read Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken (or at least read something from someone who has), which actually does present a very interesting case that the US had won the war in Vietnam before several policy changes cost us the war in the political success of the Tet Offensive. I don't necessarily agree with that position but he does argue it well. However "Vietnam was bad and we should all feel bad" is the best response I've seen given to his work and there's been hardly any serious analysis from half of academia concerning the validity of what Moyar has to say which is unfortunate.
It probably doesn't help that Moyar believes in the credibility of the Domino Theory.
LordofHats wrote:
Revisionism (despite it's negative implications in common usage) is a standard part of the process of history. History is 'revised' almost constantly.
Of course. That was only meant as a lead in to the following sentence.
LordofHats wrote:
I believe Phanatik has possibly read Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken (or at least read something from someone who has), which actually does present a very interesting case that the US had won the war in Vietnam before several policy changes cost us the war in the political success of the Tet Offensive. I don't necessarily agree with that position but he does argue it well. However "Vietnam was bad and we should all feel bad" is the best response I've seen given to his work and there's been hardly any serious analysis from half of academia concerning the validity of what Moyar has to say which is unfortunate.
I've read Moyar's book, and I actually agree with his conclusions, for the most part. Vietnam was a military victory, and a political failure. I simply disagree with the notion that the war was somehow lost by Johnson given the presence of exacerbating domestic political and economic factors. Well, that, and a Republican successor who had never been an advocate of the crusading brand of containment.
LordofHats wrote:
It probably doesn't help that Moyar believes in the credibility of the Domino Theory.
When someone says they believe in the domino theory, I tend to raise at least one eyebrow. Particularly as it applies in Southeast Asia, where there is little evidence to suggest that a stable, capitalist Vietnam would have been able to prevent the spread of communism in Cambodia and Laos. Particularly given the role that the active use of US military force in Cambodia had on the rise of Khmer Rouge.
That being said, the US military presence in Vietnam certainly inhibited the spread of communism in Southeast Asia while it was extant. The issue, as correctly identified by the Nixon Administration (and to some extent Johnson, towards the end) was that it simply wasn't worth it.
Utter Right Wing propaganda and nonsense. The George W. Bush administration in their final months made a legally binding agreement with the Iraq Government about when the US would withdraw it's troops and the current administration is merely adhering to that agreement. Not bad since it was a pointless, illegal, founded-on-lies conflict to begin with. At least someone is finally sticking to the rules even if they are rules agreed upon by Bush.
And guess which party insisted, absolutely insisted that President Bill Clinton should pull our troops out of Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident? It was Congressional Republicans, including some of the most famous ones at the time. So whether we stay or go in a war according to Republicans is purely dependent on who is president at the time or which party's president started the war in the first place.
Interestingly, the topic of this thread is trying to blame Democrats for Bush's war and withdrawal plan. I've seen other Right Wing posts online claiming Obama is trying to take credit for Bush's withdrawal plans. No matter what President Obama does the Right Wingers will whine about it just to demonize him. Facts simply don't matter for that crowd.
Here's just one of numerous online sources with some of the details of the troop withdrawal agreement under Bush. This one is from 2008.
U.S. and Iraq Agree to Withdrawal Timetable (Updated)
Alex Knapp · Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government have agreed on a timetable for troop withdrawal.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq’s cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal from the country, according to senior American officials.
The draft agreement sets 2011 as the date by which all remaining U.S. troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter.
Teams of American and Iraqi negotiators spent months haggling over the deal, which represents a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago, when talk of timetables and deadlines was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and other Republicans in Washington.
Senior officials in Washington said the talks have concluded. The deal will be presented to the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for formal approval or rejection.
“The talking is done,” one U.S. official said late Wednesday night. “Now the decision makers choose whether to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down.”
The article goes on to mention that President Bush is expected to endorse this agreement. Also of interest is the fact that the Administration appears to have given up their previous stance and will now allow military contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they are accused of a crime.
Obviously, if this deal goes through, it would be a very, very good thing. But without more detail I can’t make too much of a judgment.
Oh my god. It says that Nazis are left wing and that wikipedia is lying when it states they are extremist right wing people. Because nothing says extreme leftists like low taxes and a small national government.
You might want to try again. Nazi Germany had high taxes and an expansive national government; it helped fund the massive welfare program they instituted.
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.
The fething conservapedia is one step from fiction. So difficult to find useful inboard sources anymore.
AustonT wrote:
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.
They don't really land anywhere on the traditional spectrum, which makes sense given the schizophrenic nature of Nazism.
Hell, its possible to argue that it wasn't even really a form of fascism, just sort of its own thing.
AustonT wrote:
No one wants to be associated with the Nazi's but at best they land in the center left. Neither the far right or far left can lay claim, or be blamed for them.
They don't really land anywhere on the traditional spectrum, which makes sense given the schizophrenic nature of Nazism.
Hell, its possible to argue that it wasn't even really a form of fascism, just sort of its own thing.
I think it's fair to say that NAZI's fall on the bad part of the spectrum.
P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen. Perhaps you are more used to those paragons of journalistic virtue Politco people?
Charles Krauthhammer is to foreign policy what Glenn beck is to economics. He's a buffoon, a sideshow that they drag out to be the extreme opposite of whatever they want parodied. The only people who take him seriously are the deranged and woefully misinformed.
Seriously, the guy said that there was 'no humanitarian crisis in Palestine'. The guy has a foot in the mental ward already.
AustonT wrote:There's no humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
I suppose it depends on what you class as 'crisis'. The Israeli's are letting a fraction of the aid get through that they need, hell even access to water, electricity is a luxury and you can forget well equipped hospitals with medicine. Read any one of recent news reports on it, the conditions are pretty terrible.
Regarding the OP, well... a persistent reminder of the nature of subjectivity, and also the way in which people stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore any facts or information that come their way.
What does being able to point to Palestine on a map have to do with being able to judge whether or not there is humanitarians crisis there? Moreover, why would you ask someone to do that on the internet? Do you need to be able to point to Flint, Michigan on a map to determine it suffers from a high crime rate?
It doesn't seem like you put any thought into this. It seems more like you heard the phrase "humanitarian crisis" and "Palestine", and then did what you could to move your head to the side while your knee jerked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
Couldn't find one in English?
Strangely, in French the word for Palestine is Palestine.
Phanatic, you are the reason the US is being destroyed. You support the dismantelment of democracy and liberty by supporting the Extremist fundementalists. Our right wing racists are freaking commies compared to yours.
biccat wrote:
"Hey, we killed Bin Laden!" ("oh, and pissed off Pakistan")
Clearly this was a massive violation of the United States' long history of respect for the Pakistani government.
biccat wrote:
"Hey, we dropped Ghadafi!" ("and tread all over the war powers act")
Obama advanced an argument (report) when Congress requested one, and Congress backed down. If anything the fault lies with Congress and not the Administration, one should expect those with power to exercise it to the fullest of their ability.
biccat wrote:
"Look, we took out Anwar al-Awlaki!" ("due process? What's that?")
There is a reasonable case to be made that his citizenship had been renounced.
biccat wrote:
Anyone who praises this guy as an improvement over Bush's foreign policy is either a fool or a partisan hack. Possibly both.
That's a false dilemma, but then biccat probably knew that when he posted it, which makes the offense even more egregious.
AustonT wrote:There's no humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
.... aside from there being a humanitarian crisis in Palestine because of the Israeli blockade preventing them from getting enough food, medicine, etc, you're absolutely right!
P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen. Perhaps you are more used to those paragons of journalistic virtue Politco people?
Charles Krauthhammer is to foreign policy what Glenn beck is to economics. He's a buffoon, a sideshow that they drag out to be the extreme opposite of whatever they want parodied. The only people who take him seriously are the deranged and woefully misinformed.
Seriously, the guy said that there was 'no humanitarian crisis in Palestine'. The guy has a foot in the mental ward already.
Former president Bill Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man" in a December 2010 press conference.[15] Krauthammer responded, tongue-in-cheek, that "my career is done" and "I'm toast".[16]
Bicc, your one of the most partisan blokes ever, how can you say that anyone who thinks Obama is better at his job than Dubya is merely a partisan hack themselves!?
I mean, you know me pretty well by now right? Im not partisan, I talked my missus out of voting for Obama (shes usually a dem!) and would have had her with McCain if he hadnt picked Palin, after that we went independant.
But anyways, Yeah, I swing both ways with US politics, and I personally dislike Obama, but seriously..
I wouldnt trust George Bush with a pair of fething scissors!
Not really. In many ways basically just represent different kinds of business interests, economically speaking, with the main difference being in their social views rather than economics...
There is a humanitarian crisis in Palestine. I doubt anyone can reasonably and legitimately maintain there isn't one. Saying "point to Palestine on a map" is a silly word game. Israel, Palestine, the land of Canaan, are all the same place by different names. Go find Israel on a map. That is Palestine. Any good book address the Palestine-Israeli conflict will probably go to length in its introduction to talk about how mess up the conflict is because people can't even agree on a name for it (Palestine-Israeli Conflict/Israel-Palestine Conflict/Palestine Conflict/Israel Conflict/Israel-Arab Conflict etc etc).
That comment was the closest to getting an aggressive, rule one breaking response from me that has been posted in a long time. I think it's because AustonT usually seems sensible, and then he posts something that is so ridiculously callous and sly. Very disappointing.
As to Phanatik's article, it's easy to win arguments when you get to define every term in the argument according to your parameters. I could say that Bush "lost" the war on terror when he radicalised people with anti-american sentiment the world over, making the world a much less safe place than it previously had been with his aggressive foreign policy.
It would be just as hard to argue against, and make just as much sense as what you're posting.
Da Boss wrote:That comment was the closest to getting an aggressive, rule one breaking response from me that has been posted in a long time. I think it's because AustonT usually seems sensible, and then he posts something that is so ridiculously callous and sly. Very disappointing.
As to Phanatik's article, it's easy to win arguments when you get to define every term in the argument according to your parameters. I could say that Bush "lost" the war on terror when he radicalised people with anti-american sentiment the world over, making the world a much less safe place than it previously had been with his aggressive foreign policy.
It would be just as hard to argue against, and make just as much sense as what you're posting.
I think it would be safe to say that the people that hated us before the Bush Regime still hate us, and that the people that liked us still like us.
Perhaps the one thing Bush did right was concentrate the fighting in Iraq.
No, people hate us more thanks to GW. He was pissing of russia and screwing around in the middle east playing crusader bringing the great capitalistic system to the uncouth sand people.
Space Crusader wrote:No, people hate us more thanks to GW. He was pissing of russia and screwing around in the middle east playing crusader bringing the great capitalistic system to the uncouth sand people.
This. GW lied to us about why we went in, and we've ben stuck in a quagmire of an unwinnable war ever since.
P.S. (since this is a letter...) Charles Krauthammer is a well respected individual; when he talks, people listen. Perhaps you are more used to those paragons of journalistic virtue Politco people?
Charles Krauthhammer is to foreign policy what Glenn beck is to economics. He's a buffoon, a sideshow that they drag out to be the extreme opposite of whatever they want parodied. The only people who take him seriously are the deranged and woefully misinformed.
Seriously, the guy said that there was 'no humanitarian crisis in Palestine'. The guy has a foot in the mental ward already.
Former president Bill Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man" in a December 2010 press conference.[15] Krauthammer responded, tongue-in-cheek, that "my career is done" and "I'm toast".[16]
I appreciate the fact that Bill Clinton tried to destroy krauthammer. Liberal praise is deadly when you're a unicorn princess from shadow earth. I'm sure he's an incredible foreign policy specialist over there. The problem is he exists in the real world and doesn't know feth gak about it. That he has a media following at all is indicative of how much conservative armchair hawks like to pretend they know minor geographical facts.
Space Crusader wrote:No, people hate us more thanks to GW. He was pissing of russia and screwing around in the middle east playing crusader bringing the great capitalistic system to the uncouth sand people.
This. GW lied to us about why we went in, and we've ben stuck in a quagmire of an unwinnable war ever since.
You should read about the occupation of Iraq and how the republicans FETHED it. I would rather let an arsonic guard the world supply of oil then let republicans occupy my country. They spend a fortune on making a palace for them but barly giving anything to the needy iraqis. Not to talk about them defending the mercs murdering without punishment.
Da Boss wrote:That comment was the closest to getting an aggressive, rule one breaking response from me that has been posted in a long time. I think it's because AustonT usually seems sensible, and then he posts something that is so ridiculously callous and sly. Very disappointing..
We all have that one, at least, thing we're unreasonable about.
I'm not sure I'd agree with sly, I'm pretty open about what I think about Palestinians. Callous: yes. I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them. The sad state of the infrastructure of Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank are symptomatic of thier silent endorsement of Hamas, I take that back. Thier ELECTED support of Hamas. I'm sure a fair portion of Palestenians would prefer to be unrestricted citizens of Israel than impoverished members of the Occupied Palestenian Territories, but it's not they they got to where they are by peaceful cooperation.
AustonT, I wonder how you would respond if America was occupied by a technologically superior force which constantly expanded it's territories by bulldozing the living areas of you and your neighbours. Likelihood is you'd be pretty pissed off.
As to sly, the word game you were playing with "show me Palestine on a map" was to me, extremely sly and political. There are people suffering, nitpicking over something like that is disgraceful.
The Palestinian extremists are as bad as the israeli extremists, the people in the middle on both sides get fethed. However, what the Israelis are doing at this time is to me, indefensible. The fact that so many can endorse it completely sickens me. Damning an entire population due to the actions of a group of extremists is simply a way to drive the population into their arms- after all, who else is fighting their corner?
I doubt I will ever convince you or change your mind, but I felt I couldn't let such a nasty comment go without a response.
AustonT wrote:I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.
They're not the minority if you consider the whole of the Palestine region. Israel is not the only strip of land that is part of the conflict. Overall there are more Muslim Arabs in it than Jews. The Jews are an even smaller minority if you account for all the refugees no longer in the area. But the populations are clearly divided into different parts of the region, the Jews in the nation state of Israel, and the Muslim Arabs in the surrounding areas.
I'm sure a fair portion of Palestenians would prefer to be unrestricted citizens of Israel than impoverished members of the Occupied Palestenian Territories,
You might want to clarify that. The Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, hardly unrestricted. Israel is actually quite invested in keeping non-Jews out and disenfranchised, as you can't have a Jewish state where a significant portion of the population is non-Jewish. It's one of the key reasons Palestinians have been denied the right of return.
Da Boss wrote:That comment was the closest to getting an aggressive, rule one breaking response from me that has been posted in a long time. I think it's because AustonT usually seems sensible, and then he posts something that is so ridiculously callous and sly. Very disappointing..
We all have that one, at least, thing we're unreasonable about. I'm not sure I'd agree with sly, I'm pretty open about what I think about Palestinians. Callous: yes. I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them. The sad state of the infrastructure of Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank are symptomatic of thier silent endorsement of Hamas, I take that back. Thier ELECTED support of Hamas. I'm sure a fair portion of Palestenians would prefer to be unrestricted citizens of Israel than impoverished members of the Occupied Palestenian Territories, but it's not they they got to where they are by peaceful cooperation.
Its sometimes (well, I guess not sometimes, you're still a fairly freshfaced dakkaite!) flooring just how little you actually know about middeastern politics or economics and just how much of your information you pull straight from the teat of buzzwords and stump speeches. Or alternatively, how jaded and racist pro Palestinian foreign policy wonks can be. Lets analyze this, shall we? I mean, things like decades long campaign of terror are pretty strong and pretty loaded statements. It implies that Israel has just been sitting on it's thumbs, being the perfect neighbor, and not a hyper militant, racist, expansionist theocracy with carte blanche to do or kill whatever it wants.
I'm not sure I'd agree with sly, I'm pretty open about what I think about Palestinians. Callous: yes. I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.
In roughly 20 years roughly 800 people have been killed by suicide bombs linked to pallestinians abroad. Not all have been directed at israel, but a large number of them have. That's a frightful number by any stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries,[1][2] as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.[3]
Yeah, that sure does seem bad. 28 people, even in global terms, isn't a meaningless number. It's not even remotely close to the suicide bombings, despite getting several orders of magnitude more western media attention, but then fox news is bored of talking about bombs. They like rockets!
Lets look at the other side of this puzzle though, shall we? They've managed to bring down somewhere along the lines of 700ish israeli citizens with suicide attacks and 28 Israeli civilians in their anti israel rocket campaign Thats truly terrible. But lets see how your dark horse candidate is doing in this defensive conflict.
The IDF tallied 709 Hamas and affiliated militant deaths, which is supported by statements from Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad.[243][324] In addition, 450–720 (or 740—PMoH[325]) civilians were killed in the conflict. Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians.[326]
Uhoh tim. It looks like in a few short months Israel managed to catch up during the Gaza war in 2008!
In fact!
The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths, 4 from friendly fire.[48]
Israel is managing a near 100 to one kill death ratio! That would put any counterstrike professional to shame! Somehow, magically, despite being the defensive guy they've managed to kill nearly twice as many palsetinians in one fething month as they have ever lost to Palestinian militant aggression! But those numbers are deceiving, I think.
Lets go further into this though. Lets expand our frame of reference. Lets look at the rough total between the two sides.
Oh gak, it looks like they've managed to score a five to one kill death ratio in this conflict. Those poor jewish bastards. But why! Why would the Palestinians be so angry at them? The Israelis just want to live in peace with their neighbors, they would never do anything to actually hurt them.
Oh. Well that seems odd. I thought the israelis were defending here.
Oh. So wait. They have killed five times as many palestinians in this war as they have lost israelis. Their boders have expanded roughly 100% since they were established. They have Palestine in an internationally illegal blockade wherein they refuse to let them have stuff like musical instruments. Oh, and they also have the most powerful military in the Mideast, Nukes, and the strongest economy in the region.
Why doesn't this add up to a situation where we should feel bad for them? I mean, you certainly seem to. But it doesn't make sense. Could it be that you know absolutely nothing about the middle east? I just don't know man. I don't know.
Just as a Clarification Shuma, the Palestinians were as responsible for the destruction of the two state solution as the Israeli's. Foreign powers actually are probably more responsible for getting this mess started than anything. It might have been resolved a long time ago if we'd simply let the two sides fight it out but instead everyone got involved and started backing one or the other with the state with Western backing being the obvious winner. Palestinians actually might be doing a lot better if they weren't being left out there to hang by the political interests of neighboring Arab states.
Second, the two state solution probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Look at that 1947 division. You have one country split in half by another and are trying to divide land between two groups of people that have lost the ability to negotiate with one another amicably. This conflict was going to happen two state solution or not. Hanging that on solely the Israeli's is unfair and unrealistic.
What I find funny. If GW lied about everything when we went to war in Iraq wouldn't the process to be impeach started? Are there any documents that proved GW lied about going to war? Did he not show congress all evidence and documentation and majority of congress voted for war? Did not Saddam support extremist by providing 10K for suicide bomber families? Granted the smoking gun of WMD's were not found in Iraq....its a damn big desert we did manage to knock out a logistical column for terrorist support. I will admit and it hit the news a couple times that some IED's were 155mm artillery shells that were two chambers. A two chamber artillery shell is used for delivery of whatever chemical agent that can be filled in the chamber dispersal.
LordofHats wrote:Just as a Clarification Shuma, the Palestinians were as responsible for the destruction of the two state solution as the Israeli's. Foreign powers actually are probably more responsible for getting this mess started than anything. It might have been resolved a long time ago if we'd simply let the two sides fight it out but instead everyone got involved and started backing one or the other with the state with Western backing being the obvious winner. Palestinians actually might be doing a lot better if they weren't being left out there to hang by the political interests of neighboring Arab states.
Second, the two state solution probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Look at that 1947 division. You have one country split in half by another and are trying to divide land between two groups of people that have lost the ability to negotiate with one another amicably. This conflict was going to happen two state solution or not. Hanging that on solely the Israeli's is unfair and unrealistic.
No. That's a copout. Israel refuses to negotiate under their original borders, they refuse to stop bulldozing and settling in palestine as a precondition for talks (which is illegal by the UN), they refuse to let the wall be a topic of discussion in any but the most extreme cases (like when it goes through the middle of a palestinian town), and they refuse to let them have fething chocolate (also illegal by the UN). If American didn't have such a hardon for our tiny western ally in the mideast they would sound like cartoon supervillains.
Their territory is expanding daily into palestine and they are forcefully removing people and shooting them while they do it. In 2008 they killed over 100 Palestinian children. If that happened here we would turn their country into a hellhole worse then Iraq, and yet we're supposed to feel sorry for them? They are both bad guys, but that's like putting a mugger next to a serial rapist hedge fund operator. If you look at any of the facts with even the most barely Independant perspective the Palestinians smell like roses compared to Israel.
It's a uniquely American and uniquely ignorant perspective to think that the Israelis are the defenders here. It's uniquely lazy to throw up your hands and say "whelp, everyones wrong so who cares".
ShumaGorath wrote:No. That's a copout. Israel refuses to negotiate under their original borders, they refuse to stop bulldozing and settling in palestine as a precondition for talks (which is illegal by the UN), they refuse to let the wall be a topic of discussion in any but the most extreme cases (like when it goes through the middle of a palestinian town), and they refuse to let them have fething chocolate (also illegal by the UN). Their territory is expanding daily into palestine and they are forcefully removing people and shooting them while they do it. They are both bad guys, but that's like putting a mugger next to a serial rapist hedge fund operator. If you look at any of the facts with even the most barely Independant perspective the Palestinians smell like roses compared to Israel.
Its almost as if a situation can't deteriorate over 70 years into an absolute cluster I wasn't even talking about the current situation so much as what created it. The Palestinians have as much a role in creating their situation as Israel has. The difference is that Israel has come out on top and still seems to want to beat their opponent into the dust despite the fact their opponent is already six feet under.
It's a uniquely American and uniquely ignorant perspective to think that the Israelis are the defenders here.
I'd actually argue their both the aggressors/defenders. Difference is the Israeli's have had the upper hand since the Independence War and the Palestinians have been hung out to dry by anyone with the ability to actually help them including some of the states that put them in the current situation (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt).
It's uniquely lazy to throw up your hands and say "whelp, everyones wrong so who cares".
Well... I don't care but more because I can't see any realistic way for the conflict to end than because everyone is wrong. Israel is unwilling to budge on anything at this point and the Palestinians are ham strung by internal conflict and outside influences. Palestinians definitely have the short end of the deal but I think painting the Israelis as the root of all evil here is ignoring the role Palestinians played in creating/worsening their own situation and the role other Arab states have had in helping them do it. EDIT: The US and western powers aren't blameless either.
Da Boss wrote:AustonT, I wonder how you would respond if America was occupied by a technologically superior force which constantly expanded it's territories by bulldozing the living areas of you and your neighbours. Likelihood is you'd be pretty pissed off.
I'd probably fight until I was dead, and inculcate my children to do the same. Which might even have relevance if the Israelis just showed up, "technologically superior" and started bulldozing houses. Israel made itself a nation, garnered support from reliable allies and fought for it's life more than once, and established the most powerful military and economic powerhouse in the region. The Palestinians oversaw a slide into mediocrity and disenfranchisement over their support of external invaders.
I doubt I will ever convince you or change your mind.
Too true, and I doubt I'll change yours.
LordofHats wrote:
AustonT wrote:I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.
They're not the minority if you consider the whole of the Palestine region. Israel is not the only strip of land that is part of the conflict. Overall there are more Muslim Arabs in it than Jews. The Jews are an even smaller minority if you account for all the refugees no longer in the area. But the populations are clearly divided into different parts of the region, the Jews in the nation state of Israel, and the Muslim Arabs in the surrounding areas.
You can expand the focus however far out you want. IN Israel, which is what I said; Muslims are in the minority. Israel is the only strip of land in conflict because the Palestinians aren't demanding land from the surrounding countries, nor have they declared another countless capital as their own.
I'm sure a fair portion of Palestenians would prefer to be unrestricted citizens of Israel than impoverished members of the Occupied Palestenian Territories,
You might want to clarify that. The Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, hardly unrestricted. Israel is actually quite invested in keeping non-Jews out and disenfranchised, as you can't have a Jewish state where a significant portion of the population is non-Jewish. It's one of the key reasons Palestinians have been denied the right of return.
I did clarify it: unrestricted citizen of Israel. As I understand it those living in the OPT are franchised by the PNA and are not Israeli Citizens. There is also a significant portion of Israeli Arabs, Christians, and "others" who have full Israeli citizenship and do not suffer from the same issue Palestinians do; as they are entitled to government housing, healthcare, and social security just like every other Israeli. Gaining citizenship has been the same since the law of return, it's not hard or even discouraged to become an Israeli citizen, it's just not common.
Like I said I'm sure there's a large number of Palestinians who would rather be unrestricted Israelis than retain the title "Palestinian"
I'm not against compromise, or fair treatment for Muslims living in Israel. I'm against agitators who call themselves Palestinians attempting to subvert a legitimate nation, and unmoved by how supporting nations that attempted to militarily destroy that nation and attempt a religious genocide landed them in squalor.
Da Boss wrote:If the US stopped giving so much money to Israel and removed their backing, the conflict would end I suspect. It would be spectacularly bloody though.
I suspect that opportunity has passed. Israel has entrenched itself in its course of action at this point. Also, we don't give them as much money these days as many people seem to think we do. Israel can stand alone now unlike in the first forty or so years of the state. They don't need our help to survive like they used to, so we don't have as much control as some people think. However I do think that the US can use its leverage to force Israel to be less heavy handed than they are. Trade embargoes against Israel would also be a lot more effective than those against other states but that's an extreme I don't think we're likely to resort to.
Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?
Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them. Considering the genocidal rhetoric thrown at them they are being calm and patient. The day Israel forcibly removes all Palestinians, I'll feel bad for them. I'll also expect Jordan or Egypt to quietly cede either the East bank of the Jordan or Nile to create the Palestinian state.
Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?
Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them.
So, I guess you could call that a "final solution to the Palestinian question", huh?
AustonT wrote:They are putting Palestinians into modern age walled ghettos. Is it really that far of a jump? Expulsion seems far more likely, and palpable.
Maybe after that the Palestinians can flee across the red sea? Part some waters?
I'm the last person to want to stop debate, but can we please draw a line under this discussion of the israel/palestine conflict. I think enough column inches and words have been wasted over the years. They were fighting before we were born, and sadly, they'll probably be still at it when I'm six foot under.
There's nothing nobody on this site can do about it, so let's get back to geeky discussions of star wars and usefull pastimes like annoying frazz!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm the last person to want to stop debate, but can we please draw a line under this discussion of the israel/palestine conflict. I think enough column inches and words have been wasted over the years. They were fighting before we were born, and sadly, they'll probably be still at it when I'm six foot under.
There's nothing nobody on this site can do about it, so let's get back to geeky discussions of star wars and usefull pastimes like annoying frazz!
Fair point Shuma, but I don't mean to be a pedant, but when did the Iraq conflict become a war. War suggests a begining and an end with clearly defined strategic goals.
But I'll make the same point again: enough time has been wasted discussing the problems of the middle east.
Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?
Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them. Considering the genocidal rhetoric thrown at them they are being calm and patient. The day Israel forcibly removes all Palestinians, I'll feel bad for them. I'll also expect Jordan or Egypt to quietly cede either the East bank of the Jordan or Nile to create the Palestinian state.
Wait, a 100 to 1 kill/death ratio is "restrained"?
Former president Bill Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man" in a December 2010 press conference.[15] Krauthammer responded, tongue-in-cheek, that "my career is done" and "I'm toast".[16]
And here we have a prime example of why we read the source material.
Asked whether Americans want to see the president compromise with Republicans, and whether that is the message Obama needs to drive home to his fellow Democrats, Clinton turned the question back on itself. "Yes, but I also believe that it's a message Republicans are going to have to accept. Keep in mind, to me, the really interesting thing was . . . that a lot of the hard-core conservatives think the Republicans gave too much."
For evidence, he cited Friday's column in The Post by Charles Krauthammer, who has regularly excoriated Obama but who wrote that the president got far more out of the deal than Republicans did. Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man."
AustonT wrote: I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.
The Muslim minority isn't demanding independence from Israel, they're quite comfortable with their status as Israeli citizens.
LordofHats wrote:
You might want to clarify that. The Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, hardly unrestricted. Israel is actually quite invested in keeping non-Jews out and disenfranchised, as you can't have a Jewish state where a significant portion of the population is non-Jewish. It's one of the key reasons Palestinians have been denied the right of return.
This is also the reason that Israel considers neither the West Bank, nor Gaza part of its territory. Though, strangely, I see a lot of American policy hawks try to force it on them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The difference is that Israel has come out on top and still seems to want to beat their opponent into the dust despite the fact their opponent is already six feet under.
Well, ultimately, Israel wants the West Bank and Gaza (hell, it already treats the West Bank like Israeli territory, even if it won't lay claim), but it doesn't want the people living there. Were its allies not, for the most part, liberal democracies it could probably get away with removal or genocide. But, liberal democracies tend to frown on that sort of thing, its not likely to happen.
More reasons this is a false premise, really incredibly false that somehow Democrats lose wars and Republicans win wars.
First, the biggest most horrible, destructive conflict in history was WWII. Both FDR and Harry Truman were Democrats and I'm fairly certain the USA can call that one a win. A win under Democrats.
Second, Vietnam War ended during Republican President Nixon's tenure. How'd that work out for everyone? Oh yeah, not even close to a win. Some might call that a loss, a Republican lost that war. Then disgraced and resigned for other reasons.
Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die. Republicans are good at starting wars, not so good at ending them and certainly not winning them. Especially when they are poorly planned and started on false pretenses.
So when is the highly dubious title of this thread going to be changed to something more appropriate? I'm sure never, facts don't matter to some, only failed ideologies.
I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.
Iraq is no more Obamas' failure than the worse-to-come Iraq will be the failure of whoever succeeds him into the White House. Iraq can be blamed on Bush and his cronies, including Blair, but not Obama; frankly there is little he can do now. Obama however will deserve the same scorn if/when he orders an attack on Iran.
Orlanth wrote:
I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.
I'm not sure why the absence of a SOFA equates to an unstable Iraq. Iraq could be a staunch Iranian ally and still be perfectly stable.
Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die.
Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd
5-7 years conclusion. If we are fighting another country that wore a uniform throughout the conflict thats no problem. When your dealing with insurgents its going to drag out.
Obama started conflicted Libya and Uganda. We're doing reaper strikes in Yemen.
WWII was supported by the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan was supported by the nation at first but the duration of the conflict lessen the support for both conflicts we have going on.
Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die.
Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd
5-7 years conclusion. If we are fighting another country that wore a uniform throughout the conflict thats no problem. When your dealing with insurgents its going to drag out.
Obama started conflicted Libya and Uganda. We're doing reaper strikes in Yemen.
WWII was supported by the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan was supported by the nation at first but the duration of the conflict lessen the support for both conflicts we have going on.
its 0100 so I think my grammer good....
Would you not agree that GW dropped the ball by going into Iraq, instead of finishing the Afghanistan war first?
How/why they ever thought they could do 2 wars, let alone one, is beyond me. Just imagine if we'd
devoted all the resources that were spent in Iraq in Afghanistan? Probably wouldn't be at an END, but that
situation couldn't be any worse.
Now lets talk dollars. How deep did W dig us in just the Iraq war? apparently starting and continuing wars he had no way
to pay for is a-Okay with the Right. but, we really can't afford National health care.
And look how the Vets were being treated when they came home.
"No PTSD for you, you're an Alcoholic!" Heaven forbid that the PTSD caused the drinking in the first fething place....
It's always amazed me how the Heros that wear the flag are held up and saluted so proudly by
the Right, until it comes time to take care of them. Just ask Billbo Oreally how many Homeless Vets there are. according to
him, it's a myth. Not true at all. He's also the genius that said the US committed War crimes in WW2 at Malmedy. We were
actually the victims. you have to admire how facts don't get in the way for him!
Orlanth wrote:
I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.
I'm not sure why the absence of a SOFA equates to an unstable Iraq. Iraq could be a staunch Iranian ally and still be perfectly stable.
Sorry Dogma, I dont follow what you are saying here.
I was taking Iraqi 'stability' from a Western point of view rather than a literal one; as in 'stable' and 'pro-Iranian' are mutually exclusive, even though Islamic theocracies can have a level of consistency.
Orlanth wrote:
Sorry Dogma, I dont follow what you are saying here.
I was taking Iraqi 'stability' from a Western point of view rather than a literal one; as in 'stable' and 'pro-Iranian' are mutually exclusive, even though Islamic theocracies can have a level of consistency.
I was just pointing out the distinction that you've illustrated.
Though, even if we equate "stable" with "pro-Western" I'm still not sure why the absence of a SOFA precludes "stability".
Would you not agree that GW dropped the ball by going into Iraq, instead of finishing the Afghanistan war first?
How/why they ever thought they could do 2 wars, let alone one, is beyond me. Just imagine if we'd
devoted all the resources that were spent in Iraq in Afghanistan? Probably wouldn't be at an END, but that
situation couldn't be any worse.
The military was geared to fight on two fronts with current forces at that time. The 10 division concept was implemented during the Clinton draw down. Over the course of the war we went from battleline era soviet combat to dealing with insurgents. Quite a bit of resources went into personnel protection IE body armor, MRAP family of vehicles, drones, uparmor vehicles, NVG's, and weapons to name the mainline. I'm going to agree with you about the damn contractors
Now lets talk dollars. How deep did W dig us in just the Iraq war? apparently starting and continuing wars he had no way
to pay for is a-Okay with the Right. but, we really can't afford National health care.
Again blaming it on GW that he has a personnel agenda in starting both conflict. He showed congress all the intell and evidence he had. If he so lied about it then why was there no attempt to impeach? Also Democrats (majority) voted to go to war to. Both parties agreed to both conflict. Both sides were wrong in thinking it'll be quick. National Health Care is a whole new thread
And look how the Vets were being treated when they came home.
"No PTSD for you, you're an Alcoholic!" Heaven forbid that the PTSD caused the drinking in the first fething place....
It's always amazed me how the Heros that wear the flag are held up and saluted so proudly by
the Right, until it comes time to take care of them. Just ask Billbo Oreally how many Homeless Vets there are. according to
him, it's a myth. Not true at all. He's also the genius that said the US committed War crimes in WW2 at Malmedy. We were
actually the victims. you have to admire how facts don't get in the way for him!
How are we treated when we come home? Everytime I go through Atlanta airport for R&R people actually applaud us as we leave our terminal. There's no negative vietnam era protesting against vet that I know of. As for PTSD well I've been diagnose with it. After 3 tours I agree with it. I don't drink. I will admit sharing a glass of wine with the Lady but thats it. Now with taking care of the vets. Both parties are committed to that endeavor. With a busted shoulder, both feet busted, PTSD, and TBI. I will say my treatment was first rate and we were the priority in the Wounded Warrior/Warrior Transition Units. Homeless vets cover how far back? Not disagreeing with you but how far back? I do know 49% of Wounded Warriors are unemployed when they process out from the military. Obama got that ball rolling to hire us as a priority with good benefits employers. As for Bill O'reilly....link please.
Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd
Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.
Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.
Well Reserve and Guard duty is one weekend a month 2 weeks a year. I mention either on this post or the Iran one where you can beat the draft by joining either the National Guard or the Reserves. As for his unit not deploying to Vietnam is that his unit did not recieve deploymeny orders as a whole or as an individual. As for him missing duty its either RST (Reschedule Training) or he banked up IE he did 30 days straight of duty to furfill his obligation for the year. If I remember correctly the military debate was shutdown about his military service once he showed his DD214. Honorable Discharge. Reason why no one can counter his service obligation was a vast majority of the 201 files were lost in a fire (probaly GW fault to) in Indianapolis, Ind. (think I'm wrong on location cause I think they moved) Proof please of GW Senior influence.
Edit
As for him not deploying as a fighter pilot there were enough active duty pilots to commit to the war in vietnam and other roles throughout the world.
Again blaming it on GW that he has a personnel agenda in starting both conflict. He showed congress all the intell and evidence he had. If he so lied about it then why was there no attempt to impeach? Also Democrats (majority) voted to go to war to. Both parties agreed to both conflict. Both sides were wrong in thinking it'll be quick. National Health Care is a whole new thread
...
Bush used Blair to do a lot of the dirty work.
The "dodgy dossier", the "yellowcake" report and the WMD = 45 minutes from British troops in Cyprus were all fabrications.
There was no reliable evidence of WMDs for the simple reason that there weren't any WMDs. The arguments presented by B&B were strongly contested at the time by the UN weapons inspectorate and independent WMD experts.
There's no doubt that B&B railroaded both nations into the war by scaring the representative assemblies into voting for it.
As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.
As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.
A US president has certain immunities under US law. A British Prime Minister has no such immunitioes under Uk law, but does under EU law if holding an EU office. This has been suggested as to how and why Blair has held a succession of EU appointments, but whether this is true or not I cannot say.
Apparently you missed the part where his daddy Bush got him the gig in the National Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, then G.W. Bush just stopped showing up even for that gig and he was never charged with being AWOL or anything else because of his daddy's influence. Honestly, how did anyone miss that scandal? It's a well known and well covered fact. Another case of his supporters turning a blind-eye to his behavior.
Well Reserve and Guard duty is one weekend a month 2 weeks a year. I mention either on this post or the Iran one where you can beat the draft by joining either the National Guard or the Reserves. As for his unit not deploying to Vietnam is that his unit did not recieve deploymeny orders as a whole or as an individual. As for him missing duty its either RST (Reschedule Training) or he banked up IE he did 30 days straight of duty to furfill his obligation for the year. If I remember correctly the military debate was shutdown about his military service once he showed his DD214. Honorable Discharge. Reason why no one can counter his service obligation was a vast majority of the 201 files were lost in a fire (probaly GW fault to) in Indianapolis, Ind. (think I'm wrong on location cause I think they moved) Proof please of GW Senior influence.
Edit As for him not deploying as a fighter pilot there were enough active duty pilots to commit to the war in vietnam and other roles throughout the world.
Guard and reserve units have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, just not air national guard (or cosat guard, but they actually have a role in american security). I'm sure he was an awful air guardsman that did just enough to be classified as one. When you're father is a senator and your countrymen are dying in a war that you advocate, joining a branch of the military that can't possibly see service and then doing a piss poor job there is little different then simply dodging in my view. At least the dudes that went to Canada had the balls to actually object.
As to why neither of them have been impeached, I have no idea what the legalities of the situation may be. Cabinet collective responsibility or something, perhaps.
A US president has certain immunities under US law. A British Prime Minister has no such immunitioes under Uk law, but does under EU law if holding an EU office. This has been suggested as to how and why Blair has held a succession of EU appointments, but whether this is true or not I cannot say.
Blair asked both Parliament and the Sovereign's permission to go to war. It would be very difficult to put a case specifically against Blair since all he did was read an intelligence dossier.
Actually Jihadin I'm 99.9% sure that at least one rotation of F-16s was New York Air Guard while I was in Iraq. After the coolness of jetfighters wears off (6 days or less) you stop checking tails. But if they were guardtards they pulled some sick wheelies. I'm sure back in the 60-70s Guard didn't deploy or did sparingly but with my own eyes I've eve saw a few coast guard ratings and an officer. No idea what if anything they did in theatre, but they were there. Just a FYI, if you care.
Had Navy at Bagram and Kandahar. Mostly their SeaBee units and Security Units. Actually perfer dealing with the SeaBees and try ever underhanded way to get them to work for us instead being forced to use contractors on Kandahar. Let's say Equipment Training was used quite a lot to get things built when I stood up AMC unit there. I hate contractors
More reasons this is a false premise, really incredibly false that somehow Democrats lose wars and Republicans win wars.
First, the biggest most horrible, destructive conflict in history was WWII. Both FDR and Harry Truman were Democrats and I'm fairly certain the USA can call that one a win. A win under Democrats.
So when is the highly dubious title of this thread going to be changed to something more appropriate? I'm sure never, facts don't matter to some, only failed ideologies.
Perhaps you should reread the title.
Does it say Democrats lose every war?
FDR was a disaster. I'm glad we won the war he lied and got us into. I heartily dislike communists, but it could be said the Soviets won WWII, in Europe.
Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...
FDR didn't get us into World War II. Japan did that on its own.
And I would wonder at the position of anyone who should that the position we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are about as close to a true 'Axis of Evil' as anyone can get in history. EDIT: And arguably Soviet Russia was worse than both.
mattyrm wrote: Bicc, your one of the most partisan blokes ever, how can you say that anyone who thinks Obama is better at his job than Dubya is merely a partisan hack themselves!?
Because under any metric used to evaluate Obama's success, Bush comes out better. Under any metric used to measure Bush's failure, Obama comes out worse.
The only advantage Obama has is that he's "not Bush."
mattyrm wrote: I wouldnt trust George Bush with a pair of fething scissors!
I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.
Obama, on the other hand, can't speak well without a teleprompter, he didn't do very well as a private lawyer, worked as a "community organizer" and won his Senate seat through some of the most unethical campaign shenanigans I think I'd ever seen. Had he not run for president, most people would have labeled him extremely unsuccessful.
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh gak, it looks like they've managed to score a five to one kill death ratio in this conflict. Those poor jewish bastards. But why! Why would the Palestinians be so angry at them? The Israelis just want to live in peace with their neighbors, they would never do anything to actually hurt them.
Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty? Or, since you care so much about "those poor jewish bastards" (which indicates to me that you don't care about Israeli's so much as you care about Jews), how many Jews should be killed for each Palistinian?
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh. Well that seems odd. I thought the israelis were defending here.
They are. Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.
Melissia wrote:Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...
Well actually...
Japan invades China. Does mucho nasty things. US puts oil and commercial embargo on Japan (sound familiar) Germany invades Europa. Does mucho nasty things but in cool uniforms. US begins lend lease and protects its hemisphere against "pirates" quasi war against German navy begins. Japan gets uppity with the whole Tora Tora Tora thing. Germany, an ally declares war (later known as the 1941 Oops II the year we ed up by A Hitler) Slavic peasants, Georgia farmboys, and guys saying "right!" a lot whoop up on Fritz. US explains to Japan, never bring a navy to a nuke war. The end. or is it?
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.
That's not quite true.
A huge deal of why people think about him is based upon his generally awful public speaking record which includes the innumerable gaffes he made. This is, of course, inevitable for any public figure, goes with the territory one supposes, but some of his were well.. spectacular isn't quiet the word but buttock clenchingly bad at the least.
Guess he looked bad compared to his slick predecessor too perhaps ?
He was in no way a successful business man by any realistic standards, the companies he was involved in generally collapsing and being run into the ground.
Although I'll grant you it takes a certain special talent to lose money in the oil industry. In Texas. When your dad is the President.
Can't deny his graduations. Somewhat odd though, to say the least, that the entry grades he was accepted on are so significantly lower than for anyone else. But, in fairness, that's hardly unusual for people in his situation.
mattyrm wrote: I wouldnt trust George Bush with a pair of fething scissors!
I'm not sure why. His reputation for being an idiot is completely based on a myth provided by the media. People think he's dumb because they have preconceptions that he's dumb. It doesn't matter that he is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, two of the (supposedly) best universities in the US. Or that he was a successful governor and businessman. He's dumb because people think he's dumb.
Obama, on the other hand, can't speak well without a teleprompter, he didn't do very well as a private lawyer, worked as a "community organizer" and won his Senate seat through some of the most unethical campaign shenanigans I think I'd ever seen. Had he not run for president, most people would have labeled him extremely unsuccessful
Mate, as you know, I'm no fan of Obama, I agree he may be dishonest and certainly ran an unethical campaign, but the Bush stuff..
He was a C student at Uni, he wasn't a particularly successful governor (he invented Jesus day?!) and according to 60 minutes he wasn't an even remotely successful businessman because his Dad had to bail him out numerous times thanks to a catalogue of feth ups!
I don't even particularly dislike Bush mate, I had a merry time on my four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and I'm proud to say that Im a veteran of both, I didnt want to spend all my time in Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland, so I owe the bloke a thanks! I would even go so far as to say that seeing as I am somewhat bigoted when it comes to Islam I am pleased with his aggressive stance during the war on terror and have no issue's at all with him bombing anyone, Gitmo, or invading anyone! Plus, he was nice to the Queen, distantly related to our PM and seemed to be a nice enough bloke on a personal level, where as Obama seems distant and smug and is hard to like.
But you can tell when a bloke is switched on bic, merely by the way that they speak and carry themselves, and Bush strikes me as being somewhat dim.
YMMV of course, but American Republicans (of which you are clearly one) are going to be a tad biased right?
Not me, Im a dirty foreigner with right wing tendencies.
Melissia wrote:Wait, are you seriously going to claim FDR is morally bankrupt because he got us in to World War II? This certainly puts your fascist/nazi comments in a new light...
His comments aren't fascist or nazi...even in the slightest, he is just misinformed
Frazzled wrote:
Well actually...
Japan invades China. Does mucho nasty things.
US puts oil and commercial embargo on Japan (sound familiar)
Germany invades Europa. Does mucho nasty things but in cool uniforms.
US begins lend lease and protects its hemisphere against "pirates" quasi war against German navy begins.
Japan gets uppity with the whole Tora Tora Tora thing.
Germany, an ally declares war (later known as the 1941 Oops II the year we ed up by A Hitler)
Slavic peasants, Georgia farmboys, and guys saying "right!" a lot whoop up on Fritz.
US explains to Japan, never bring a navy to a nuke war.
The end. or is it?
Frazz has it 100% right here...Japan declared war on us..as did Germany
The British can always find an alcoholic drink. Anyway in the world.
As superpowers go it ain't superspeed or telepathy but we stagger err.. struggle on.
It's quite likely he'd meet more Irish people outside of Ireland anyway. As far as I can tell almost the entire population of Ireland and Australia is based in England, usually working in bars, seemingly employed to tell us endlessly about how great it is back home, yet only ever going back there under the most extreme circumstances.
I think it's something to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
reds8n wrote:Can't deny his graduations. Somewhat odd though, to say the least, that the entry grades he was accepted on are so significantly lower than for anyone else. But, in fairness, that's hardly unusual for people in his situation.
Er...what?
I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie? I suppose it's not unexpected.
Also, could you please provide a link to the grades Mr. Bush's successor received before entering Harvard?
Frazzled wrote:Wait you wanted to go to Afghanistan over Northern Ireland?
Beer and moderate climate and people wanting you to die over
Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you and people wanting you to die.
I'm noticing the only thing in common is people wanting you to die. Mattrym, uniting disparate people in a common cause...
Mate, in South Armagh (known as Bandit country) 100% of the locals want you to die. The army lads might have went up north where its a mixture, but there its pure hate from everyone you speak to. Its also far worse because they are identical to British people and they speak the same language. When your kneeling down outside a post office and a young girl the same age comes out and calls you a long list of unrepeatable obscenities, its far worse than the brown, toothless, grinning idiots who barely speak English. I cant really explain why, but it is.
You live in a tin shed, your banned from drinking for 6 months, and hardly anything happens. As a young commando you crave jumping out of helicopters, launching missiles at people, firing your underslung grenade launcher at fethers that deserve it, shooting your Minimi from the hip!
Not sitting in a tin shed on top of a wind swept hill and being swore at for 6 months whilst being filmed the whole time by savvy Terrorist supporting chavs who you aren't allowed to shoot, stab, blow up or even stick a left hook into for fear of annoying people.
I think I even prefered the arse end of Africa to NI. You really need to experience the hate for yourself.
Frazzled wrote:Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you
erm...you know I never knew they made vodka in a can until I went to the sandbox. I won't condone disobeying the general orders but for some reason that one sticks...Vodka...in a can.
Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty?
Roughly one.
Or, since you care so much about "those poor jewish bastards" (which indicates to me that you don't care about Israeli's so much as you care about Jews), how many Jews should be killed for each Palistinian?
None. It doesn't work that way.
They are. Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.
No, it really doesn't. As the comparative military superpower in the region that beat all of it's neighbors simultaneously in a week it doesn't seem like it's defending against much at all. That its kills significantly more then it's lost while its territory has expanded dramatically further indicates that the pro Israel line of defense is an impressive lie. That it's been bulldozing homes outside of it's territory and setting up settlements for decades is further testament to that.
Honestly, unless you're going to point out some sort of secret history of conflict then you don't have a leg to stand on. You can believe that they are the defenders with all of your heart, but frankly the numbers tell a starkly different story.
Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty?
Roughly one.
Well, that's an unfortunate perspective.
ShumaGorath wrote:None. It doesn't work that way.
So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?
ShumaGorath wrote:
biccat wrote:Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.
No, it really doesn't.
Sure it does.
The British Mandate of Palestine (that is, 'Palistine before 1948') included Transjordan. The area west of the Jordan river was to be established as a Jewish homeland (without prejudicing existing occupants). Therefore, the first map is at least deceptive as it does not indicate that "Palestine" as originally conceived was to be a Jewish area.
The second, obviously, raises the issue that the Muslims in Palestine didn't accept the UN partition plan. Therefore, the partition plan remains solely a U.N. recommendation, not an actual enforcable agreement. The party with authority over the Mandate, Great Britain, refused to enforce the plan. Therefore, the second map is deceptive.
The third map (and second) ignores the fact that Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that these lands (part of "Historic Palestine") were actually occupied in 1949 by foreign nations.
As for the fourth, I'm not sure exactly what it is showing except to differentiate Jewish from Muslim settlements.
Obviously one problem throughout the maps is that the author attempts to claim all of Palestine as a Muslim (Arab) land and paints "Israel" as an occupying force. However, a contrary picture can be painted. Before 1947-8, Palestine/Israel had 0% local control. The UN Partition plan tried to split control. In 1949, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by a foreign nation. Only in 1967 was Palestine/Israel brought under a single government. Now 12% is attempting to split away and form their own country.
reds8n wrote:Please don't call other posters liars BTW.
So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?
I'm drawing a conclusion about the intent and methodology of Israeli military efforts, not their efficacy. No one would think to dispute that Israelis are great at blowing people up. A helicopter is way better at it then an old soviet dumbfire rocket.
The British Mandate of Palestine (that is, 'Palistine before 1948') included Transjordan. The area west of the Jordan river was to be established as a Jewish homeland (without prejudicing existing occupants). Therefore, the first map is at least deceptive as it does not indicate that "Palestine" as originally conceived was to be a Jewish area.
As was originally conceived and what was implemented are quite different and they're prejudicing original occupants to a pretty high degree regardless.
The second, obviously, raises the issue that the Muslims in Palestine didn't accept the UN partition plan. Therefore, the partition plan remains solely a U.N. recommendation, not an actual enforcable agreement. The party with authority over the Mandate, Great Britain, refused to enforce the plan. Therefore, the second map is deceptive.
Insofar as the borders to Israel are fluid and unrecognized by virtually any party. Israel thinks they're bigger, the UN thinks they're smaller, Palestine thinks they're significantly smaller. No mapped document of the border line is official in en enforceable capacity beyond what the Israelis draw themselves (as they're the ones enforcing it) and most of the world takes issue with what isreal proclaims is its territory. The map could certainly be construed as deceptive, but by the logic you are putting forth any map would be. It's a disputed territory and it's hard to argue that the borders to Israel have not expanded significantly past their original line by most estimates or that by the british mandate that the Israelis have not prejudiced the occupants.
The third map (and second) ignores the fact that Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that these lands (part of "Historic Palestine") were actually occupied in 1949 by foreign nations.
That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.
As for the fourth, I'm not sure exactly what it is showing except to differentiate Jewish from Muslim settlements.
It's showing the effective Israeli borders as governed by the security wall, which ostensibly is to enforce a border which is often times a significant distance away from the wall. It's a physical object to denote what the israelis wish to be their borders (and which cuts through dozens of Palestinian towns, often times with the aim of driving the residents to flee or into poverty). The wall line is perhaps the most useful way to differentiate what constitutes Israeli 'territory' whether legitimate or not.
Obviously one problem throughout the maps is that the author attempts to claim all of Palestine as a Muslim (Arab) land and paints "Israel" as an occupying force. However, a contrary picture can be painted. Before 1947-8, Palestine/Israel had 0% local control. The UN Partition plan tried to split control. In 1949, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by a foreign nation. Only in 1967 was Palestine/Israel brought under a single government. Now 12% is attempting to split away and form their own country.
Does that make their concerns over the right to life or economic prosperity less legitimate? Does it make the gaza blockade or the settlement plans more legitimate?
Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.
ShumaGorath wrote:
So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?
I'm drawing a conclusion about the intent and methodology of Israeli military efforts, not their efficacy. No one would think to dispute that Israelis are great at blowing people up. A helicopter is way better at it then an old soviet dumbfire rocket.
I believe you meant "efficiency," not "efficacy." They're two different words. Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect. Efficiency is how well it works.
I'm not picking on you specifically for grammar, the use of "efficacy" as a substitute for "efficiency" has gotten a lot of play recently, and frankly it s me off.
Sorry.
ShumaGorath wrote:The map could certainly be construed as deceptive, but by the logic you are putting forth any map would be. It's a disputed territory and it's hard to argue that the borders to Israel have not expanded significantly past their original line by most estimates or that by the british mandate that the Israelis have not prejudiced the occupants.
Well, like I said, Israel hasn't expanded beyond the British Mandate. And while there are legitimate disagreements on the borders between Israel and Palestine (which isn't actually a separate country), the overall perspective presented by the maps you showed was incorrect and misleading.
ShumaGorath wrote:That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.
Yes it does. If Israel lost land and retook it, then Israel isn't growing.
ShumaGorath wrote:Does that make their concerns over the right to life or economic prosperity less legitimate? Does it make the gaza blockade or the settlement plans more legitimate?
Irrelevant for this discussion. I addressed the validity of the maps, not the concerns of those Muslims living in Israel/Palestine.
Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.
So Hamas is now a legitimate military force? Or are we discussing the conduct of the Israeli military? Given that neither force is at 'war' since the last gaza offensive and given that one of the two sides doesn't possess a military at all it would appear that you're throwing some pretty loaded sentiments at me.
I believe you meant "efficiency," not "efficacy." They're two different words. Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect. Efficiency is how well it works.
I'm not claiming the Israeli military is efficient. They're great at 'producing effects', but those effects are rarely their stated goals. The war in gaza hardly stamped out Hamas and was a PR disaster for Israel and the common response to a rocket or mortar attack is to airstrike and then secure the area, regardless of civilian presence. An efficient force wouldn't need to constantly exercise force beyond what is necessary as the Israeli military is known for.
Well, like I said, Israel hasn't expanded beyond the British Mandate. And while there are legitimate disagreements on the borders between Israel and Palestine (which isn't actually a separate country), the overall perspective presented by the maps you showed was incorrect and misleading.
Because you somehow got it into your head that the british mandate is legitimate at this point, or that it ever was something enforced beyond paper maps in the (very) early planning stages. The 1949 armistice agreement which attempted to draw the borders of israel look nothing like the modern state and it's as close to a starting border as it gets.
ShumaGorath wrote:
That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.
Yes it does. If Israel lost land and retook it, then Israel isn't growing.
To be fair Israel after the 1949 Armistice included neither the West Bank or Gaza, neither did the Palestinians. The areas were controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively. There was little to no agitation for a Palestinian state while those areas were under foreign rule for nearly 20 years.
So Israel did acquire those areas and the Golan, as well as the Sinai. They held the Sinai for 11 years. Given that Israel gave up the Sinai willingly (it's really a worthless stretch of land but strategically important) it's hard to make the case that expansion is their only goal.
No one really makes much noise about the fact that the IDF forcibly removed the Jews living in Gaza. There's no great outcry for the displacement of those people or their rights. It probably has to do with the fact that it's ideologically inconvenient that the Knesset evicted Jews for Palestinians.
Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.
So Hamas is now a legitimate military force? Or are we discussing the conduct of the Israeli military? Given that neither force is at 'war' since the last gaza offensive and given that one of the two sides doesn't possess a military at all it would appear that you're throwing some pretty loaded sentiments at me.
My personal belief is that violence against military targets is legitimate in pursuit of a political or military goal (even if it's by ambush or surprise attack) while violence against civilians is not. So attacking the World Trade Center is terrorism while attacking the Pentagon is a military attack (note that using civilians as the means for the attack makes it terrorism).
ShumaGorath wrote:Because you somehow got it into your head that the british mandate is legitimate at this point, or that it ever was something enforced beyond paper maps in the (very) early planning stages. The 1949 armistice agreement which attempted to draw the borders of israel look nothing like the modern state and it's as close to a starting border as it gets.
Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.
I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.
My personal belief is that violence against military targets is legitimate in pursuit of a political or military goal (even if it's by ambush or surprise attack) while violence against civilians is not. So attacking the World Trade Center is terrorism while attacking the Pentagon is a military attack (note that using civilians as the means for the attack makes it terrorism).
I stopped really drawing the line when we started arguing about what determined enemy combat status. We've just fought in three wars, two against a plain clothes non military insurgency and one fighting for such an insurgency. There is no difference any more and terrorism is no less legitimate now then it was when we were firebombing cities in japan. It's an awful thing, but it's not the sole purview of extremists like we're pretending and it's little different then any doctrine that tolerates collateral damage (such as Israels).
Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.
I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.
One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.
Turkey has some pretty questionable (but existent) legal claims to a few areas in Israel, but I doubt they actually want them. It's not even close to worth the trouble.
Frazzled wrote:Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you
erm...you know I never knew they made vodka in a can until I went to the sandbox. I won't condone disobeying the general orders but for some reason that one sticks...Vodka...in a can.
I've learned something, and that something is intriguing.
ShumaGorath wrote:I stopped really drawing the line when we started arguing about what determined enemy combat status.
And that's unfortunate.
ShumaGorath wrote:One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.
I'm not sure what your dispute with the Mandate is. Do you dispute the validity of the mandate or do you dispute how the British handled it? I'm pretty sure I could agree with the latter, but not the former.
Also, I'm not sure how much authority you should give to cartographers.
I'm not sure what your dispute with the Mandate is. Do you dispute the validity of the mandate or do you dispute how the British handled it? I'm pretty sure I could agree with the latter, but not the former.
The latter and it's handling and transition into the maps drawn up during the armistice. The mandates maps were drawn in the 20's.
Also, I'm not sure how much authority you should give to cartographers.
That shoots the mandate down pretty hard then, the British occupation in practice did very little to enforce the borders of occupied Palestine and as has been pointed out earlier Palestine pre Israel was just a border surrounding (and cutting through) a series of non aligned tribes.
That's why I was giving such weight to the border map that follows the wall earlier in the thread. It's a real thing. An enforced territory marker.
Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.
I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.
One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.
The Mandate of Palestine was drafted voted and passed by the League of Nations, it's called the British Mandate because they were given the ruling authority just as France recieved the Mandate of Syria.
The original mandate looked like this
The 1922 mandate which is what is oft quoted looked like this
Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).
Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).
And next time we're discussing Americas borders lets just use the colonial maps! They're really relevant these days.
Now if we're going by their actual territory though the map is a lot less pretty. I know about the mandate, I've taken history classes before the wiki is nice and informative anyway. The partitioning of land nearly a century ago does not accurately reflect the nation building of a half century ago and has next to nothing to do with the border disputes today.
That you continue to act like the mandate is at all relevant to this conversation outside of setting an irrelevant historical context makes me question what the hell you're trying to prove here.
biccat wrote:
I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie? I suppose it's not unexpected.
Bush's grades at Yale (2.35/4 as stated by his campaign) were well below the present average entry scores for Harvard Business School (3.5) with no student admitted with less than a 2.6 in 1997. Even if we allow for significant grade inflation, which is possible, it is still almost certain that Bush's grades were well below the average admitted GPA.
He didn't release his grades from Phillips (though the name alone would give him a significant leg up in terms of Ivy admissions), but his cumulative SAT of 1206 was ~200 points below Yale's admitted average of 1400 for the Freshman class of 1970. Granted, as I said, he likely was admitted to Yale as a result of being a Phillips graduate, and a legacy; though that doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of qualification (many people will see it that way, though).
Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).
Now if we're going by their actual territory though the map is a lot less pretty. I know about the mandate, I've taken history classes before the wiki is nice and informative anyway. The partitioning of land nearly a century ago does not accurately reflect the nation building of a half century ago and has next to nothing to do with the border disputes today.
Your history teacher failed you, or you failed him/her. I also doubt you had an in depth conversation about the creation of the state of Israel in any American education system below the college level. Since "the wiki is nice and informative" lets post text from the article you took your failed map link from.
Wikipedia wrote:The plan included a detailed description of the recommended boundaries for each proposed state.The plan also called for an economic union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.
That you continue to act like the mandate is at all relevant to this conversation outside of setting an irrelevant historical context makes me question what the hell you're trying to prove here.
Are you sure you took history? Lets link your favorite article.
Wikipedia wrote:an independent state of Israel was declared "from the moment of the termination of the Mandate"
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.
ShumaGorath wrote:The mandate specified the region it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation.
You posted factually inaccurate remarks about the mandate and I refuted them.
The Mandate for Palestine wrote:The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home
You can post factual information and continue a discussion or just continue to ignore the real world like you normally do.
Your history teacher failed you, or you failed him/her. I also doubt you had an in depth conversation about the creation of the state of Israel in any American education system below the college level. Since "the wiki is nice and informative" lets post text from the article you took your failed map link from.
I'm a graduate from two colleges, though I thank you for the insult. Don't you love these tit for tats? As for the map, its hell of a lot more accurate then the 90 year old mandate that you seem to still think is legitimate or observed. The partition plan is the closest thing the modern state of Israel ever had to an internationally recognized border, it was based roughly on the mandate and broke down almost immediately. What the hell are you arguing? That it doesn't exist? That it is somehow superseded by the original writ of the mandate? That Israels borders are rightfully fluid because of the nebulous nature of their initial founding?
Please clarify what you're blithering on about. I know you vehemently disagree about something, but you really need to clarify what that actually is.
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.
The termination of the mandate sure doesn't sound like "it's continuing legitimacy as legal writ for the next 60 years".
After the Second World War ended, the United Kingdom announced its intention of recognizing Transjordan as a "fully independent state" on 17 January 1946, and this was welcomed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 February 1946.[15] On 22 March 1946, the United Kingdom and Transjordan concluded a treaty of "friendship and alliance" [15]. On 18 April 1946 the final meeting of the League of Nations Assembly unanimously passed a resolution welcoming the termination of the mandated status of Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, "which have ... become independent members of the world community."[15] These developments were not welcomed by Zionist organizations. A Jewish Agency spokesman said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter,[16] the Jewish people still had a secured interest in its territory.
In fact I'm pretty sure no one has cared about the mandate in a very long time.
You posted factually inaccurate remarks about the mandate and I refuted them.
No. I didn't. You just don't know the history as well as you think you do or you've taken a stance older then frazzled and just as confusing.
You can post factual information and continue a discussion or just continue to ignore the real world like you normally do.
The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948,[119] However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that "unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result."[120]
I think we all know what happened after that. Your history teacher apparently stopped assigning reading a few years before '48.
AustonT wrote:
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.
Not quite. So I don't have to type out the explanation, here's a wiki quote:
A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement included "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization
We're good Shum so don't think you got me riled all up or anything like that. Seems someone getting testy?. Beside there's a Height requirement for that attempt and you don't make it
We're good Shum so don't think you got me riled all up or anything like that. Seems someone getting testy?. Beside there's a Height requirement for that attempt and you don't make it
I don't understand why you're quoting him. Are you attributing that to me? Am I getting testy? Why am I short? What am I too short for?
AustonT wrote:
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.
Not quite. So I don't have to type out the explanation, here's a wiki quote:
A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement included "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization
And an excellent one!
I have to ask the question: Have you ever read the Mandate of Palestine?
I'm a graduate from two colleges, though I thank you for the insult.
This shall be sigged.
Proof that education doesn't equal intellect
As for the map, its hell of a lot more accurate then the 90 year old mandate that you seem to still think is legitimate or observed.
So your map that is three quarters the age, feth it lets use real numbers, that is 67 years old is relevant today but the Mandate map that is 89 years old is not.
The partition plan is the closest thing the modern state of Israel ever had to an internationally recognized border, it was based roughly on the mandate and broke down almost immediately.
More factually incorrect nonsense. The border with Jordan was formalized in 1994, with Egypt in 1979, Lebanon in 2000, and with Syria at the Purple line in 1967 The Golan hieghts remaining an occupied territory of Syria. All of those borders are internationally recognized.
No. I didn't. You just don't know the history as well as you think you do or you've taken a stance older then frazzled and just as confusing.
Its a shame those two college educations left you without the ability to find your way out of this confusion given the plethora of documentation related to the subject.
This shall be sigged. Proof that education doesn't equal intellect
Oh noooooooooo
So your map that is three quarters the age, feth it lets use real numbers, that is 67 years old is relevant today but the Mandate map that is 89 years old is not.
The mandate map isn't relevant because it's not relevant. It's not recognized by anyone anywhere outside of your chair as the current boundaries of the state of Israel. It hasn't been for roughly 67 years. I still don't understand what you're arguing or what you're trying to say I'm incorrect on.
More factually incorrect nonsense. The border with Jordan was formalized in 1994, with Egypt in 1979, Lebanon in 2000, and with Syria at the Purple line in 1967 The Golan hieghts remaining an occupied territory of Syria. All of those borders are internationally recognized.
The border with Jordan and Egypt follow very closely along the partition plan, the border with Syria is contested and has changed three times in half a century. What are you arguing?
Its a shame those two college educations left you without the ability to find your way out of this confusion given the plethora of documentation related to the subject.
And it's a shame you've yet to actually make a point in two pages of arguing. Get to one. this is growing tiresome and the shifting sands you're surfing around on are making me sleepy. So now you don't care about the mandate? Why did you bring it up so many times? Their borders are now determined by conflict resolutions? Well it's good that you're getting on the boat three pages too late. Find a point and say it.
No its not. The articles relating to the Palestine-Israeli conflict on Wiki are horrible and have been the subject of more edit wars than any other article on the site as the two hyper-political sides bicker back and forth over who's evil-er.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The mandate map isn't relevant because it's not relevant. It's not recognized by anyone anywhere outside of your chair as the current boundaries of the state of Israel. It hasn't been for roughly 67 years. I still don't understand what you're arguing or what you're trying to say I'm incorrect on.
The Mandate was in effect for 26 years, The UN partition plan was never in effect. If we want to talk about relvance you citing an resolution unrecognized by either party seems irrelevant. So while the Mandate hasnt been in effect for 67 years the Partition Plan never was, I guess that make it irrelevant.
More factually incorrect nonsense. The border with Jordan was formalized in 1994, with Egypt in 1979, Lebanon in 2000, and with Syria at the Purple line in 1967 The Golan hieghts remaining an occupied territory of Syria. All of those borders are internationally recognized.
The border with Jordan and Egypt follow very closely along the partition plan, the border with Syria is contested and has changed three times in half a century. What are you arguing?
ROFL. What are YOU arguing? Or do you even know? The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties established the borders with respect to the Mandate. Remeber that Mandate no one has recognized for 67 years but has been cited in treaties in 1979 and 1994?
And it's a shame you've yet to actually make a point in two pages of arguing. Get to one. this is growing tiresome and the shifting sands you're surfing around on are making me sleepy. So now you don't care about the mandate? Why did you bring it up so many times? Their borders are now determined by conflict resolutions? Well it's good that you're getting on the boat three pages too late. Find a point and say it.
I don't have to make a point, as I am on the counter-point side of this discussion. These shifting sands seem to be made of of that strange, almost etheral, collection of internationally recognized documents readily available to you and anyone else before you vomit up your factually incorrect nonsense. Having failed to fact check your statements I have tirelessly corrected and cited references for you.
/scoffs
Conflict resolutions. They are called treaties. Treaties often contain mutual agreements on borders (Article II of the '79 treaty and Article III of the '94 treaty).
You're right it has been two pages, you have yet to produce a factual argument. Good Luck.
The Mandate was in effect for 26 years, The UN partition plan was never in effect. If we want to talk about relvance you citing an resolution unrecognized by either party seems irrelevant. So while the Mandate hasnt been in effect for 67 years the Partition Plan never was, I guess that make it irrelevant.
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.[1]
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes (i.e. not counting abstaining and absent members).
The majority of the Jewish groups, and the Jewish Agency subsequently announced their acceptance of the proposed Jewish State, and by implication the proposed international zone, and Arab State. However, it had been stipulated that the implementation of the plan did not make the establishment of one state or territory dependent on the establishment of the others.[25]
The plan went into effect in the following 60 years about as much as the mandate or any other form of border delineation. Most of it had to be decided via conflict along the proposed border lines, and most of those border lines stuck. It's no less legitimate then the mandate which ceased to exist at about the same time as the Israeli state since the partition was meant to replace it. This is the problem here, neither of these law sets are particularly powerful in the modern day but you're sitting here screaming in my ear about the superiority of the older and the irrelevance of the younger despite both of them being fairly irrelevant and one being the effective sequel to the other.
ROFL. What are YOU arguing? Or do you even know?
At this point I have no idea, you've just been yelling at me without really telling me why.
The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties established the borders with respect to the Mandate. Remeber that Mandate no one has recognized for 67 years but has been cited in treaties in 1979 and 1994?
No, they were signed with respect to established and UN recognized borders laid out in the partition plan which is based very roughly on a heavily modified redrawing of the mandate. The mandate is in there. It's still important historically. Its just not what this gaks based on any more.
I don't have to make a point, as I am on the counter-point side of this discussion.
So previously you didn't have to debate in good faith and now you don't even have to have a point. Are you just here to yell at pinkos?
These shifting sands seem to be made of of that strange, almost etheral, collection of internationally recognized documents readily available to you and anyone else before you vomit up your factually incorrect nonsense.
Yes. Clearly. Events between 1936 and 1948 are a myth. They dissapeared when the time wizard stole our calenders.
Having failed to fact check your statements I have tirelessly corrected and cited references for you.
Not really. You've been blowing past what I've been citing and you've been restating the same crap over and over again. You do that. A lot.
Conflict resolutions. They are called treaties. Treaties often contain mutual agreements on borders (Article II of the '79 treaty and Article III of the '94 treaty). You're right it has been two pages, you have yet to produce a factual argument. Good Luck.
So their borders are based on the treaties based on the partition plan based on the mandate, so they are all based directly on the mandate (despite it being null and void well before those conflicts) and I am wrong about everything. Got it. Cool. I'm going to use that logical fallacy train at the next station and see how you react to it. I doubt you'll react well.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, they were signed with respect to established and UN recognized borders laid out in the partition plan which is based very roughly on a heavily modified redrawing of the mandate. The mandate is in there. It's still important historically. Its just not what this gaks based on any more.
From the Jordanian Goverment website
The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty wrote:The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
From the Israeli MFA
Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty wrote:The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II
No mention whatsoever of UN resolution 181 or the boundries contained within. Probably has to do with the fact that UN 181 was a non-binding reccomendation, the Mandate remaining the only binding (one might say "mandatory") agreement in place until 14 May 1948
ShumaGorath wrote:Not really. You've been blowing past what I've been citing and you've been restating the same crap over and over again. You do that. A lot.
"The same crap" happen to be binding internationally recognized Mandates and treaties, matters of public record. You cited WIKIPEDIA, which is all well and good for a quick surface reference, but holds no water against specific primary sources.
Heres your source from wikipedia
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181
Heres an excerpt from the preamble of UN 181
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below
UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.
ShumaGorath wrote:So their borders are based on the treaties based on the partition plan based on the mandate, so they are all based directly on the mandate (despite it being null and void well before those conflicts) and I am wrong about everything. Got it. Cool. I'm going to use that logical fallacy train at the next station and see how you react to it. I doubt you'll react well.
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.
No mention whatsoever of UN resolution 181 or the boundries contained within. Probably has to do with the fact that UN 181 was a non-binding reccomendation, the Mandate remaining the only binding (one might say "mandatory") agreement in place until 14 May 1948
The mandate was suspended in 1946 in transjordan and syria and in 1948 in palestine (it was suspended directly because of the partition plan). The mandate was neither binding nor mandatory in 1948. Jordan also signed the armistice with Israel in 49. The reason egypts and transjordans borders reflect the mandate is because they already did and because the partition plan was to partition the state of Palestine between arabs and jews, not adjust it's borders with the pre established nations surrounding it (which were spun off as previously mentioned). The partition is what established israeli and palestinian zones of control, not the mandate. I don't understand what you're arguing.
Are you trying to establish that the mandate is currently a legitimate legal law set that is enforced? Are you trying to establish that the partition plan never did anything? I never said that the mandate wasn't important historically, in fact I've said it was twice. I stated that it didn't reflect the creation of the modern state of israel and that it didn't reflect the creation of israeli and Palestinian governed territories in the region. It didn't.
UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.
Actually, the wikipedia had all that under the section of arab reactions to the law. I quoted bits from it earlier. The thing of it is that it doesn't matter if they recognized it. Hell, they had a war about it (more then once). The mandate was becoming unenforceable as the British empire was pulling back from the region, the partition plan was designed to provide a framework for the seperation between jewish and palestinian communities. Its something the mandate didn't do and the resolution is still there and oft referenced as a point of origin for the territorial disputes between the two peoples.
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.
The partition plan is the territorial line used during most of the formation of Israel. Hardline elements within the early Israeli ruling body wanted the mandate borders that included transjordan and the arab league unanimously refused to recognize the partition plan. The founding of the jewish state still used the partition plans borders with the caveat of willful expansion of the jewish state in the aftermath of the war. The reason their actual modern borders are a nearly exact duplicate of the partition borders (excepting the current Palestinian governed territories) and look nothing like the original mandate is because the state was established within those borders, whether their neighbors were legally bound by them or not.
As for modern mention of the partition plan, the Palestinians seem to like to talk about it a lot in modern times (primarily because it was one of the few internationally recognized pieces of legislation that gave them borders).
AustonT wrote:
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above.
Israel's borders are based on the Mandate to some extent, but the partition plan is far from irrelevant. As I noted earlier, Israel itself does not claim the West Bank or Gaza. It also explicitly violates Mandatory Borders with its claim to the Golan Heights.
More to the point, the reason that the Partition Plan is not mentioned in the peace treaties you've brought up is that doing so would entail taking an active position on the Palestinian issue, or one of the relevant countries laying claim to part of the OT, which is not necessarily material to a non-aggression pact.
ShumaGorath wrote:The mandate was suspended in 1946 in transjordan and syria
voted and approved at the final meeting of the League of Nations ending and not suspending the mandate as a nation was formed in each case.
and in 1948 in palestine (it was suspended directly because of the partition plan). The mandate was neither binding nor mandatory in 1948.
this contains two incorrect statements at least one of which I have already corrected for you before.
1. The mandate was not suspended because of the partition plan the partition plan was a reaction to the announcement by Britain of it's intent to end the Mandate by 1 August 1948. Let's talk chronology. On 7 FEB 1947 Britain announced it's intention to end the Mandate no later than 1 AUG 1948. On 15 MAY1947 the UN Special Committee on Palestine was formed. The committee delivered it's report on 31 AUG 1947, the plan was voted on 29 NOV 1947. 8 months after the announcement from the Foreign Office. The mandate's termination was not related to the partition plan. You could say the plan was created specifically because of the impending termination of the mandate, but not the other way around
2. The Mandate remained in effect and binding until 14 MAY 1948 as announced in SEP 1947, again before the vote on UN 181 even occurred and just to reenforce the point that the partition plan is and was not a legitimate binding international document: from your favorite!
Wikipedia wrote:It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding.
Jordan also signed the armistice with Israel in 49. The reason egypts and transjordans borders reflect the mandate is because they already did and because the partition plan was to partition the state of Palestine between arabs and jews, not adjust it's borders with the pre established nations surrounding it (which were spun off as previously mentioned). The partition is what established israeli and palestinian zones of control, not the mandate. I don't understand what you're arguing.
You had a valid point and then you lost it again by referring to the partition plan. For the last time and I'll even use caps THE PARTITION PLAN IS NOT, HAS NOT,AND WILL NEVER BE BINDING. It is a historical document that falls into the realm of "good idea" but not "legal document" The reason the Mandate instead of say the 49 Armistice is mentioned is partly because the borders of Transjordan were solidified based on the 22 Mandate that split the original Mandate and partly because the last level document establishing borders was the 22 Mandate. The 49 Armistice specifically stated it did not determine permanent borders. The 67 Armistice had become the de jure borders but were hotly contested so the Mandate supplemented by the 67 Armistice were used as the basis for the Egypt and Jordan treaties. Pack up your partition plan and dont bring it back to a discussion about Israels borders in the region.
Are you trying to establish that the mandate is currently a legitimate legal law set that is enforced?
No the treaties are the legitimate legal set that is enforced when discussing the subject of borders, which unless you decided to chang horse midstream was the core issue.
Are you trying to establish that the partition plan never did anything?
I don't have to establish that, it's a fact.
I never said that the mandate wasn't important historically, in fact I've said it was twice. I stated that it didn't reflect the creation of the modern state of israel and that it didn't reflect the creation of israeli and Palestinian governed territories in the region. It didn't.
We were discussing borders, I specifically took issue with the statement that the 49 armistice was the closest thing to legal border Israel had. In the creation of the State of Israel you have a factual point in invoking the partition plan but not excluding the mandate. Both are referenced in the Declaration of Independance, and both are included in the declaratory clause; historically speaking its important to note that the Declaration was basically from the Jews TO the UN. 40 years later when it became apparent that the Palestinains would not be able to take "Palestine" the Modern state of Israel they appealed to the UN for statehood and were granted it on the same basis for which Israel had.
ShumaGorath wrote:
UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.
Actually, the wikipedia had all that under the section of arab reactions to the law. I quoted bits from it earlier. The thing of it is that it doesn't matter if they recognized it. Hell, they had a war about it (more then once). The mandate was becoming unenforceable as the British empire was pulling back from the region, the partition plan was designed to provide a framework for the seperation between jewish and palestinian communities. Its something the mandate didn't do and the resolution is still there and oft referenced as a point of origin for the territorial disputes between the two peoples.
The Arab reaction was total rejection, it's documented. It does matter that they rejectd it as much as it matter they had a war over it, they lost. If I offer you say 75% stock in a company to which I will take 25% in the startup negotiations and you tell me to go pound sand. I build a multibillion dollar wholly and privatly owned business and 40, or even 20 years later you return to demand your 75%, its my turn to tell you to pound sand. The "Palestinians" had an oppourtunity to create an Arab state in 1948, they got greedy and found thier hand caught in the bear trap. Any claim of legitmacy after that is questionable at best, it's an unwise position to support. Had the Palestinians created an Arab state in 1948 and been conquered we'd have a different kettle of fish, they didn't.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.
The partition plan is the territorial line used during most of the formation of Israel. Hardline elements within the early Israeli ruling body wanted the mandate borders that included transjordan and the arab league unanimously refused to recognize the partition plan. The founding of the jewish state still used the partition plans borders with the caveat of willful expansion of the jewish state in the aftermath of the war. The reason their actual modern borders are a nearly exact duplicate of the partition borders (excepting the current Palestinian governed territories) and look nothing like the original mandate is because the state was established within those borders, whether their neighbors were legally bound by them or not.
The discussion on the parition plan is all used up.
ShumaGorath wrote:As for modern mention of the partition plan, the Palestinians seem to like to talk about it a lot in modern times (primarily because it was one of the few internationally recognized pieces of legislation that gave them borders).
See "business" above.
dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above.
Israel's borders are based on the Mandate to some extent, but the partition plan is far from irrelevant. As I noted earlier, Israel itself does not claim the West Bank or Gaza. It also explicitly violates Mandatory Borders with its claim to the Golan Heights.
It's claim to the Golan Hieghts is based on offensive military operations that the UN is not allowed to recognize, although "technically" it has a legitimate claim to the hieghts based on the 1920 Palestinain mandate, making that argument is a fools errand.
More to the point, the reason that the Partition Plan is not mentioned in the peace treaties you've brought up is that doing so would entail taking an active position on the Palestinian issue, or one of the relevant countries laying claim to part of the OT, which is not necessarily material to a non-aggression pact.
All of the signatories of the Arab League took on the formal responsibility to assist Palestine in achieving statehood, so one would think they would take every oppourtunity to reenforce the only document supporting that fact. Unfortunatly thier names being clearly signed in the "against" voting block and their expensive and growing losses to an ever increasingly powerful Israel made it political and possibly even military suicide to demand recognition of the plans borders. I'm thinking of Egypt here specifically, they also recieved the Sinai back so for them the Mandate boundires were advantagous. Truth be told both governments were more than happy to be shut of any real responsibility to enforce a resolution of the Palestinian Question by arms, and therby safe from further Israeli agression.
AustonT wrote:
It's claim to the Golan Hieghts is based on offensive military operations that the UN is not allowed to recognize, although "technically" it has a legitimate claim to the hieghts based on the 1920 Palestinain mandate, making that argument is a fools errand.
Do you mean San Remo? If so, my reading of the final division between the British and French mandates, and therefore Israel and Syria, left the majority of what Israel claims of the Golan Heights to Syria.
But yes, you're right, Israel's claim to the Golan is military, my point is that the original Mandate is not inviolate, even for the Israeli state.
AustonT wrote:
All of the signatories of the Arab League took on the formal responsibility to assist Palestine in achieving statehood, so one would think they would take every oppourtunity to reenforce the only document supporting that fact. Unfortunatly thier names being clearly signed in the "against" voting block and their expensive and growing losses to an ever increasingly powerful Israel made it political and possibly even military suicide to demand recognition of the plans borders.
They likely would have if, as you say, they were not so poorly positioned with respect to Israel. However, if the issue of focus were a nonaggression pact, and not Palestinian sovereignty, then there would be no reason to do so; which neatly explains the actions of the Arab states.
AustonT wrote:
I'm thinking of Egypt here specifically, they also recieved the Sinai back so for them the Mandate boundires were advantagous. Truth be told both governments were more than happy to be shut of any real responsibility to enforce a resolution of the Palestinian Question by arms, and therby safe from further Israeli agression.
Sure, but my point is that in the absence of an Israeli claim to Gaza and the West Bank to consider either a part of Israel is misleading. They are not Israeli, not are they Egyptian or Jordanian. They're either stateless, or Palestinian.
@dogma no quotes today I'll answer in order.
Sort of the San Remo conference set up ALL the mandates but they were individually passed. When the Palestinian Mandate was passed it included the Golan Heights. Technically the British violated the mandate by trading the Golan for oil rights in Mosul circa 1923.
Certainly the Mandate is not inviolate, but it is defiantly more applicable than the UN Partition Plan.
2. Nothing to add
This is going to run more to opinion than open fact:
I think Israel in the 70's was more concerned with solidifying their borders and raising children than any concern about or for the Palestinians. So in the 67 war they took and held the two areas as much to say ,"this is ours, feth off" and establish the Mandate borders to the international (read non Arab) community. The fact they now had to deal with an even larger Arab Muslim community that did not identify themselves as Israeli as a consequence. The truth is the Jews didn't WANT to deal with the Palestinians, they just couldn't trust Egypt or Jordan to control them, or indeed to protect Judaism in East Jerusalem.
I might have gone on a tangent here.
They are "technically" no longer stateless as the UN recognized their statehood in 1988. What they lack is true autonomy. I think Israel has proven they would rather be shut of the Palestinians as a group, the 2005 forced relocation of Gaza Jews. Had the Gaza Palestinians remained peaceful I have little doubt Israeli embargoes would have lessened, they did not. And the 2008 Gaza war was the result.
I would love to see nonviolent Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza at least.
AustonT wrote:
Sort of the San Remo conference set up ALL the mandates but they were individually passed. When the Palestinian Mandate was passed it included the Golan Heights. Technically the British violated the mandate by trading the Golan for oil rights in Mosul circa 1923.
It included part of the Golan Heights, but the majority of it had been ceded to France in the Franco-British boundary agreement of 1920, and the ensuing commission to establish borders. The Mandate itself is not particularly specific regarding where the line is drawn, that was left to the French and British to decide, so it wasn't really a violation.
AustonT wrote:
Certainly the Mandate is not inviolate, but it is defiantly more applicable than the UN Partition Plan.
Concerning the territorial claims of Jordan and Egypt, that's true. Its also true regarding what Israel may claim as territory (excepting the Golan), but it isn't particularly relevant to the Palestinian issue.
That being said, the Partition Plan is a proposed solution to the issue in question, and not necessarily a strong claim to territory for Palestinians. Truthfully, it wouldn't even be a bad solution were it not for the attempt to unify Gaza and the West Bank as a single nation, which is misguided on a number of levels.
AustonT wrote:
The truth is the Jews didn't WANT to deal with the Palestinians, they just couldn't trust Egypt or Jordan to control them, or indeed to protect Judaism in East Jerusalem.
I agree with that.
AustonT wrote:
They are "technically" no longer stateless as the UN recognized their statehood in 1988. What they lack is true autonomy. I think Israel has proven they would rather be shut of the Palestinians as a group, the 2005 forced relocation of Gaza Jews. Had the Gaza Palestinians remained peaceful I have little doubt Israeli embargoes would have lessened, they did not. And the 2008 Gaza war was the result.
I would love to see nonviolent Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza at least.
Ultimately its one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios where neither side necessarily has any incentive to back down due to the absence of trust. I think one way of creating that trust would be ending Israeli settlement in the WB, and giving that region full autonomy as an independent state that didn't include Gaza, but that's unlikely to occur.
Wow, I read all 7 pages and have taken away a few things from this discussion.
#1 With all the Dubya talk, no one mentioned Dick Chaney. As to the iraqi conflict, just follow the money, Who made the most money in Iraq...Chaney/halibertion. Blackwater (aka XE) have also made a bundle over there. All this money made from oil and most of the iraqi's are living in sqular, but they have freedom right....right...
#2 THEY HAVE VODKIA IN A CAN!!!! Those arabs are light years ahead of us
And when I was debunking the premise of the title of this thread pages ago I missed the most obvious thing of all, the idea that this failed money hole that's destroyed our economy and countless lives was a "won war". I guess someone tuned out completely after that "Mission Accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier in San Diego Bay years ago. Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.
BrassScorpion wrote:And when I was debunking the premise of the title of this thread pages ago I missed the most obvious thing of all, the idea that this failed money hole that's destroyed our economy and countless lives was a "won war". I guess someone tuned out completely after that "Mission Accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier in San Diego Bay years ago. Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.
Attempting to debunk...
And, what came after "Mission Accomplished" included fighting, but it wasn't a war. The war ended when the Iraqi military ceased to exist.
Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.
BrassScorpion wrote: Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.
I'm sure this is based on your personal experiance.
I'm also sure it was Bush et al who encouraged units of the Iraqi police to kidnap,torture, and murder thier neighbors. It was probably Bush et al that invaded Kuwait, leading to international embargoes and causing the Iraqi infrastructure to crumble after 1991. I can keep goning. They certainly didn't help but the level of violence between 2006 and 2010 is markedly different, but I'm sure the lack of nightly shootings and mortar attacks and the slackening of helicopter assaults was probably missed over the sound of your xbox.
BrassScorpion wrote: Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.
I'm sure this is based on your personal experiance.
I'm also sure it was Bush et al who encouraged units of the Iraqi police to kidnap,torture, and murder thier neighbors. It was probably Bush et al that invaded Kuwait, leading to international embargoes and causing the Iraqi infrastructure to crumble after 1991. I can keep goning. They certainly didn't help but the level of violence between 2006 and 2010 is markedly different, but I'm sure the lack of nightly shootings and mortar attacks and the slackening of helicopter assaults was probably missed over the sound of your xbox.
Melissia wrote:Intentionally exaggerating someone's features can be more insulting than portraying them honestly, whether those features are physical or political.
And portraying realistic figures in violent situations can be more insulting then portraying them in an over the top fashion.
Sounds like you are both getting to do what you want and not have to pay for it. Not sure what the issue is, unless you are trying to imply that getting an advanced degree is somehow lesser than jumping out of planes.
I've an advance degree in tranportation management and handling. I just didn't go to college for it. Army paid my way through the necessary courses. Also with a T.S. clearence which open a lot of the doors starting at 150K. I just had more fun at 25
Neither. I'm a subject matter expert. I'm trained/educated for broad spectrum of movement issues. With T.S. clearence I handle movement of military and gov't equipment/personnel plus a lot of secret squirrel aspect. The transportation master degree doesn't apply to what I actually do. Also there's a big difference between private sector and gov't sector. I mention this on another thread. If you have a degree or working on degree. Apply for a security clearence. Granted a degree is good but a kicker is a security clearence. Also another factor is one coming out of college to one already trained up to spec. Just with the T.S. and handling movement in the entire theater in and out of Afghanistan experience I be first choice. Well the other factor is 20 yrs vet and a wounded warrior to boot.
I was 25 in 1995. Big Difference from then to now. I'm not knocking your degree's. The point was I was having a lot of fun back then.
advice. get a secret clearence. they last 10 yrs. its a foot in the door. trust me. Your Great Step Uncle SSG Wilkinson 5 removed will not set you up for failure
just reread what you caught on me. I want to leave at advance degree due to the secret squirrel stuff.
I was just wondering if it actually was a degree program or advanced training, as you said. The military does send people to college occasionally for things after all. I'm not sure what you mean by "catching" you on something.
Military send you to college for so many years but then your commited to serve so many years back which is more then the years you spent in school. Loose example is 3 yrs college for 6 more yrs of service
Three months basic training come close. Question though...is the any of the "Iron Fist" good looking? I don't care if she a democrat or a republican (attempt to keep topic on track) if she's a redhead its bonus points
Jihadin wrote:Three months basic training come close. Question though...is the any of the "Iron Fist" good looking? I don't care if she a democrat or a republican (attempt to keep topic on track) if she's a redhead its bonus points
Its a state school, so there are plenty of cuties.
Honestly it kind of sucks because I'm not old enough to be weird for flirting with them, but flirting with them jeopardizes my job.
Jihadin wrote:Three months basic training come close. Question though...is the any of the "Iron Fist" good looking? I don't care if she a democrat or a republican (attempt to keep topic on track) if she's a redhead its bonus points
Its a state school, so there are plenty of cuties.
Honestly it kind of sucks because I'm not old enough to be weird for flirting with them, but flirting with them jeopardizes my job.
Wouldn't be any fun without some added risk or danger! makes the reward all the sweeter!
Jihadin wrote:Three months basic training come close. Question though...is the any of the "Iron Fist" good looking? I don't care if she a democrat or a republican (attempt to keep topic on track) if she's a redhead its bonus points
Its a state school, so there are plenty of cuties.
Honestly it kind of sucks because I'm not old enough to be weird for flirting with them, but flirting with them jeopardizes my job.
Wouldn't be any fun without some added risk or danger! makes the reward all the sweeter!
Why would anyone date college girls, most of them seem kind of vapid in my own opinion. A little better than high school girls, but I like my girls with a bit of independence in them.
I'm looking at a potential three majors if I can actually do that, but its me cheating in a way seeing as though my Biochemistry classes fulfill all but one of the Chemistry Major classes and I minored in Psychology so I have the majority of those classes out of the way. I have to retake Calc 3 and Physics 2 to take Physical Chem and finish those Chemistry majors so I figured that in order to retain my "full-time" student status I'll take some more psych classes on the side and have a pretty sweet looking resume. Oh so many possibilities now that I have to bring two C minuses up to C's.
After that hopefully I'll get into USUHS or into the HPSP and go to EVMS. Military service is required, but with USUHS you count as active duty the first day of class and with HPSP I can go to any medical school as long as I fulfill what is required (Four 45 day ADTs during Medical School which also covers Commissioned Officer Training, finishing the program, four years active duty at a military hospital as a doctor, and then four years of inactive reserve duty). USUHS guys get paid more during school than HPSP students do. Free medical school, getting paid while going to medical school, and then at least 8 years of a steady job(plan to do 20 years of active at least) sounds good to me especially when its something I want to do.
Be very aware that IRR are like the first called to fill in plugs. Go National Guard. Just for a Sat and a Sun thats a pretty hefty check.
I want active duty medical though.
Like I said, I plan to do 20 years at least. Now its not like I'll be enlisted or anything, I'll be an O-3 when all is said and done and I have my choice of service too. Air Force is the way to go for me; they work with the other branches, have a better selection of bases, sleep in buildings as opposed to tents, and its the only branch my family has yet to serve in. Then again I've never had a member of my family go past E-7.
And $1,000 a month for a stipend is more than I currently make at my little retail job.
Well...as a CPT...remember...Troop Medical Center..or TMC as we call em...to us its Tylonal, Motrin, and Crutches. If you can get flight sureon to. Its mostly knowing what meds affect capabilitis to fly (if you go ARMY). As for possible deployment..well...no one actually live in barracks lol...its either a B-hut, Mod, K-hut, wet or dry chu, and maybe the ole warehouse for a couple week.
Alright! I'm back. I'm full of piss, vinegar, subway, and Skyrim. I'm at my center, I'm unattached to the argument, I'm a leaf on the wind. Lets do this thing!
voted and approved at the final meeting of the League of Nations ending and not suspending the mandate as a nation was formed in each case.
I find that the differentiation between a mandate that is suspended and one that is ended is small. Effectively it became unenforceable after that year (realistically well before it) and was little more than a document with which borders had been built for half a century but which had little power over the nations it sought to define beyond tradition.
this contains two incorrect statements at least one of which I have already corrected for you before.
Capitalize that T!
1. The mandate was not suspended because of the partition plan the partition plan was a reaction to the announcement by Britain of it's intent to end the Mandate by 1 August 1948. Let's talk chronology. On 7 FEB 1947 Britain announced it's intention to end the Mandate no later than 1 AUG 1948. On 15 MAY1947 the UN Special Committee on Palestine was formed. The committee delivered it's report on 31 AUG 1947, the plan was voted on 29 NOV 1947. 8 months after the announcement from the Foreign Office. The mandate's termination was not related to the partition plan. You could say the plan was created specifically because of the impending termination of the mandate, but not the other way around
Without access to the inner workings of the bodies deciding upon British foreign and military policy you can't say for certain whether the Partition plan was a planned replacement designed to create international consensus on the borders for the Israeli state (which itself had been in the rough planing stages before the mandates announced suspension) or whether it was a reactionary drafting designed to replace it upon the empires intended withdrawal from the area. I personally err on the belief that the empire wasn't acting in a reactionary fashion here, and that the partition plan which they had a strong hand in crafting was meant to replace an aging and now unenforceable series of laws from an era that had come to an end rather then an effort to lay the burden of stability and border drawing upon the national community after realizing that there would be issues with the isreali states founding without British enforcement.
Both are viable but I'll cede that it's more conspiratorial to believe that these efforts were planned out beforehand, regardless of their eventual failure.
2. The Mandate remained in effect and binding until 14 MAY 1948 as announced in SEP 1947, again before the vote on UN 181 even occurred and just to reenforce the point that the partition plan is and was not a legitimate binding international document: from your favorite!
I just said it wasn't in effect in 1948 and you then quoted me and told me it wasn't in effect in 1948. After that you asserted that I was dumb for thinking that a document that I said wasn't binding was binding.
You had a valid point and then you lost it again by referring to the partition plan. For the last time and I'll even use caps THE PARTITION PLAN IS NOT, HAS NOT,AND WILL NEVER BE BINDING.
A non binding resolution doesn't cease to exist just because it's non binding. I think that's where you keep tripping up here. No agreement is internationally binding to a region that doesn't recognize it. That doesn't mean it has no effect. Either way you're directly contradicting yourself now because apparently, being non binding is meaningless. Yet the mandate was somehow binding for a half century as a governing document determining borders despite being suspended entirely.
It is a historical document that falls into the realm of "good idea" but not "legal document" The reason the Mandate instead of say the 49 Armistice is mentioned is partly because the borders of Transjordan were solidified based on the 22 Mandate that split the original Mandate and partly because the last level document establishing borders was the 22 Mandate. The 49 Armistice specifically stated it did not determine permanent borders. The 67 Armistice had become the de jure borders but were hotly contested so the Mandate supplemented by the 67 Armistice were used as the basis for the Egypt and Jordan treaties. Pack up your partition plan and dont bring it back to a discussion about Israels borders in the region.
I just said that the partition plan didn't have anything to do with Israels borders with Jordan and syria and that it partitioned Israel between natives and israelis while doing its best to respect pre determined borders. You quoted it. It is what you quoted. You then yell at me for asserting that the partition plan carved up their borders as writ of law. Are you reading my posts through some sort of dark mirror?
No the treaties are the legitimate legal set that is enforced when discussing the subject of borders, which unless you decided to chang horse midstream was the core issue.
The core issue has been what determined the borders of Palestinian zones of control within the Israeli state. That's been the issue from post 1. It's been what i've attempted to cite in almost every one of my posts responding to you. I'm on the same horse, you just took the race into the ocean. It all started with that little map that you didn't like because it used the partition plan and not the mandate (which wasn't applicable). Well tough cookies, the partition was the first legal document to set up the zones between Israel and Palestine and if it never existed then the Palestinians are stateless and israel is committing genocide inside of it's own borders. Something that is actually much worse. The israelis recognized the document, despite the Arabs not. Whether its binding now is fairly irrelevant to the original point as is what Israels borders are with Syria.
I don't have to establish that, it's a fact.
Well then I guess the israeli state was drawn up by men whose briefcases were full of stardust and unicorns because the document that it was based on apparently doesn't count because the arabs (who weren't the ones setting up a state) didn't recognize it.
We were discussing borders, I specifically took issue with the statement that the 49 armistice was the closest thing to legal border Israel had. In the creation of the State of Israel you have a factual point in invoking the partition plan but not excluding the mandate. Both are referenced in the Declaration of Independance, and both are included in the declaratory clause; historically speaking its important to note that the Declaration was basically from the Jews TO the UN. 40 years later when it became apparent that the Palestinains would not be able to take "Palestine" the Modern state of Israel they appealed to the UN for statehood and were granted it on the same basis for which Israel had.
You're clearly glossing over the massive upheaval that the formal declaration and foundation of the state of isreal caused in the region. Their population surged, they had newly defined borders, they had a new government, a nation was created where none existed before. They didn't just suddenly decide one day that they needed affirmation for what they had been doing for half a century. That's silly.
I exclude the mandate in the creation of Palestine because it was suspended and because the partition plan was based directly on it and penned by the people that suspended the mandate. The chicken and the egg causality discussion is certainly quite gray and you could be right. But this isn't really in contention. The mandate continued to be an important document as I have said now repeatedly, but it was not an enforced set of laws by this date and the wars that followed occurred specifically because of it's toothlessnesss. The partition was approved and then rejected, then a war happened. Between the approval and the war a state was founded. The rejection doesn't make the partition dissapear and from the beginning I have been referencing it as a founding document for the Palestinians.
The Arab reaction was total rejection, it's documented. It does matter that they rejectd it as much as it matter they had a war over it, they lost. If I offer you say 75% stock in a company to which I will take 25% in the startup negotiations and you tell me to go pound sand. I build a multibillion dollar wholly and privatly owned business and 40, or even 20 years later you return to demand your 75%, its my turn to tell you to pound sand.
And if I put a tape line in our room and tell you which half is mine, you reject that, and then I punch you in the face until you stop crossing over it all of a sudden that line is real whether you accepted it or not.
The "Palestinians" had an oppourtunity to create an Arab state in 1948, they got greedy and found thier hand caught in the bear trap. Any claim of legitmacy after that is questionable at best, it's an unwise position to support. Had the Palestinians created an Arab state in 1948 and been conquered we'd have a different kettle of fish, they didn't.
Whether its wise or unwise its just about all they have at this point. It's not like the Israelis aren't violating numerous lawsets that they are signatories under in the way that they treat the Palestinian zones and their other direct neighbors.
The discussion on the parition plan is all used up.
Why? Because you identified early on that you were wrong concerning the initial point (the borders of Palestinian zones of self governance)? Is that why you dragged this thing halfway across the universe into a chicken and egg debate concerning the end of the mandate and the origins of the partition plan?
See "business" above.
It's a pretty terrible analogy to use on a population that you are now coining as stateless. Were your analogy to hold up your multibillion dollar company would probably be broken up and would of had it's board either arrested or fined significantly for repeated illegal actions. That or the contract would of been declared null and void due to their breakage of it.
Jihadin wrote:CHWAT...you did to remember to breathe on that Shum?
Yep! I'm really hoping we can just resolve this quickly though. I'm just about debated out on this topic. I learned plenty but the argument is boiling down to things that we either can't really know and aren't relevant or that are sourced from both of us coming at this argument from (apparently) very different angles. Also, Austons gettin' mean.
I wasn't even talking about the current situation so much as what created it. The Palestinians have as much a role in creating their situation as Israel has. The difference is that Israel has come out on top and still seems to want to beat their opponent into the dust despite the fact their opponent is already six feet under.
