South Africa to Syria's rescue

[Reffo]

The uS didn't liberate but occupied Iraq without any legal reason or international legitimation,

Yes it did

and occupiers need to be resisted.

No, they are not occupiers and they don't need to be resisted.

According to polls I posted on this thread the large majority of Iraqi's, both shiites and sunnites, think attacks against the occupiers are legitimated and Americans are there to grap Iraq's oil.

Nonsense, they showed their support for what happened by turning out in massive numbers to vote in the elections.

We didn't need to sabotage anything

You already admitted in your earlier post how petrified you were of success for America in Iraq.

nonsense, Israel wanted to expand its territory for several reasons,

Nonsense, it didn't want to expand.

if not it would have withdraw long ago.

Not if it feared another attack while having less defendable borders.

It was Israel who initiated a fullscale invasion of Egypt.

No it wasn't. Egypt, Syria and Jordan threatened to strangle Israel in 1967.

Since they build many colonies,

They are not colonies.

which doesn't exactly demonstrate their intention to leave these territories anytime soon. Only since the Intifadeh which brought huge international pressure and turned the occupation into a dangerous and costly affair many Israeli politicians and the israeli public opinion changed their position in favor of a two state solution.

The intifadah is actually the thing that stops them from getting out from some of the settlements which were built when Israel came to the realisation that the arabs don't want peace.

[takeo]

Reffo

Yes it did

No, not according to international law and not according to the Iraqi's themselves.

No, they are not occupiers and they don't need to be resisted.

yes they are, they invaded Iraq without international legitimation, but of course you can still stubbornly continue to deny the undeniable, but it doesn't really enhance your position... according to every poll conducted among Iraqi's they see Americans as occupiers and even support attacks against them. (see above). Again I know this is hard for you to accept, but this is the reality.

Nonsense, they showed their support for what happened by turning out in massive numbers to vote in the elections.

You should really read the opinion polls conducted by several independant organisations as well as the one conducted by the Brittish government. Only the shiites (and Kurds) went in large numbers to the elections, to elect their own shiite pro-Iranian leaders, who are much more favorable towards Iran than towards the US. The shiites however resist the American presence as much as the sunnites, they wellcomed the fall of Saddam but not the ones who replaced him. Iraq was the only Arab country openly supporting the Hezbollah, I think that means something as well. Shiites are no puppets of the Americans. Even shiite groups affiliated with the government attack coalition forces, that makes sufficiently clear how they think about American presence in their country. Of course currently they still need the Americans to root out the sunnite revolt, once that happened or a peace-deal has been reached, you will see how soon they will demand American withdrawel. Even more and more shiites are questioning if American presence is necessary to combat sunnites.

You already admitted in your earlier post how petrified you were of success for America in Iraq.

But since Iraq is ruled by a shiite majority there is no longer any danger that Iraq will be used as a base to attack Iran or Syria, this has been specifically excluded by iraq's prime minister by the way. As the situation is now I hope Iraq will stabilise, the government will reach an agreement with the sunnite insurgeants and throw the Americans out and build a coalition with Iran and Syria, I think this scenario is quite likely to happen.

Nonsense, it didn't want to expand.

yes it did

Not if it feared another attack while having less defendable borders.

"les excuses sont faites pour s'en servir", as we say in French...

No it wasn't. Egypt, Syria and Jordan threatened to strangle Israel in 1967.

Israel still imports most trough the mediterranean sea, it is a poor excuse and Israel could have reacted differently. By the way Israel uses regularly the closure of borders and access to sea themselves.

They are not colonies.

Yes they are, they are build in an area which doesn't belong to Israel.

The intifadah is actually the thing that stops them from getting out from some of the settlements which were built when Israel came to the realisation that the arabs don't want peace.

No, most settlements were build in the 70's and early 80's, and during the relatively peacefull years of Oslo. Nowadays relatively few Israeli want to live in the occupied territories, except of course the extremists. Israel only accepted the two-state solution after the first Intifadeh and after a lot of international pressure, before that labor nor Likud would even consider any withdrawel. It shows resistance was necessary. Also if Hezbollah didn't continuously attack Israeli troops in southern Lebanon during the 90's they would still be there.

[Illuminatus]

Unfortunately the Takeo types seem to be getting more numerous on the home front and they have been gaining ground politically. And as he says, their greatest fear is that the Iraq venture would turn out to be a success after all. They will do anything to sabotage that and they will use any bit of bad news to agitate to bring the troops home. Of course it's easy for the Jihadis to oblige them with bad news! All they have to do is to find some easy civilian targets and blow some people up and voila, there is some bad news for any leftist or rightist antiwar newpapers to lap up and dish out to their gullible public. And if the news are not bad enough, never mind, those types of newspapers will gladly embilish it, no qualms about it....

So Lumi, that's why I am a tad pessimistic. Those of us who want the war to bear fruit and see democracy in Iraq flourish, see a good life for Iraqi people without the Baathists and with economic prosperity, have the harder job.

It's always harder to build than to destroy and all the Jihadis and their so called "antiwar" leftist (mostly) buddies need to do is to destroy. The Jihadis actually destroy people, while their leftist buddies destroy the morale of the west's home front ......

"It always harder to build" -- first of all, a great honest post. I'm not at all "tad pessimistic".

Its always been that way ever since Adam and Eve got kicked our of the garden.

Its always been easier for a criminal to rob or destroy. I think King David in one of his psalms (in fact all of us) have voiced the same exact complaint. But in the end, the criminal (or the ideology) will always get their due. You and I take months if not years to build a house and some criminal comes along and destroys everything in a couple of hours. The same goes for the kind of destruction and mass killings our forum Saddamite enjoys. Does that mean his kind will prevail?

You'll notice that thorughtout history Communism, Islamo-Fascists, Stalinists and Saddamites have only done nothing but destroy or steal. All of them will, or now lie in the dust bin of history -- but at one time, they sure "appeared" all powerful and strong didn't they?

scroll on down to the pictures on this website --> http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

Show this to Saddamites and watch them nerviously twitch , become lost & confused, babble uncontrollably; unable to comprehend that good -- i.e. honest labor, loving your children, saving & striving for the future -- will always prevail. In ten years the silenced forum Saddamite will find some other subject to whine about (they always do).

best regards

[takeo]

"It always harder to build" -- first of all, a great honest post. I'm not at all "tad pessimistic".

Its always been that way ever since Adam and Eve got kicked our of the garden.

Its always been easier for a criminal to rob or destroy. I think King David in one of his psalms (in fact all of us) have voiced the same exact complaint. But in the end, the criminal (or the ideology) will always get their due. You and I take months if not years to build a house and some criminal comes along and destroys everything in a couple of hours. The same goes for the kind of destruction and mass killings our forum Saddamite enjoys. Does that mean his kind will prevail?

You'll notice that thorughtout history Communism, Islamo-Fascists, Stalinists and Saddamites have only done nothing but destroy or steal. All of them will, or now lie in the dust bin of history -- but at one time, they sure "appeared" all powerful and strong didn't they?

scroll on down to the pictures on this website --> http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

Show this to Saddamites and watch them nerviously twitch , become lost & confused, babble uncontrollably; unable to comprehend that good -- i.e. honest labor, loving your children, saving & striving for the future -- will always prevail. In ten years the silenced forum Saddamite will find some other subject to whine about (they always do).

best regards

The US is the one that destroys, they bombed Iraq to the stone age and afterwards they started a very destructive war, they destroyed nearly everything Iraq had build during previous decades.(such as the best social security and education system in the Arab world) The US doesn't build, it destroys, just like in Vietnam. If you have to resort to religious symbols to prove that this war was just, it just shows how desperate you are. Bush will soon be in the dust bin of history, where he belongs, and his own people despise him. Do you need a napkin for your tears? And don't start about Saddam I don't care about Saddam, but you care about this warcriminal, friend of the Saudi terrorists and lier called Bush.
"good will always prevail" man you sound the typical stereotype of the dumba$$$ American, you're like a cartoon personality. So you gotta love Bush to love your children and save for the future? Man, this isn't silly anymore, that's just insane.

[Reffo]

Yes it did

No, not according to international law and not according to the Iraqi's themselves.

Yes, according to international law because the elected Iraqi government wants the US to stay and help them to get rid of the remnants of your Saddamist allies.

No, they are not occupiers and they don't need to be resisted.

yes they are.....

What can I say other than what I already said before: Click Here And this too: Click Here

Nonsense, they showed their support for what happened by turning out in massive numbers to vote in the elections.

You should really read the opinion polls....

I have read them but not the ones that you favour. And you should look at the number of Iraqis who turned out to vote in the elections despite the fact that your Saddamist allies and their Jihadi partners called for them to boycot the elections ..... and even threatened to murder those who didn't heed their calls....Despite that millions of Iraqis turned out to vote ....

You already admitted in your earlier post how petrified you were of success for America in Iraq.

But since Iraq is ruled by a shiite majority there is no longer any danger that Iraq will be used as a base to attack Iran or Syria, this has been specifically excluded by iraq's prime minister by the way. As the situation is now I hope Iraq will stabilise, the government will reach an agreement with the sunnite insurgeants and throw the Americans out and build a coalition with Iran and Syria, I think this scenario is quite likely to happen.

And doesn't the prospect of stabilisation in Iraq and the American success just petrify you? Anything but that, huh Takeo?

Nonsense, it didn't want to expand.

yes it did

What can I say other than what I already said before: Click Here And this too: Click Here

Not if it feared another attack while having less defendable borders.

"les excuses sont faites pour s'en servir", as we say in French...

What can I say other than what I already said before: Click Here And this too: Click Here

No it wasn't. Egypt, Syria and Jordan threatened to strangle Israel in 1967.

....and Israel could have reacted differently. .....

It could have but it didn't because it looks out for it's own security and doesn't listen to ill wishing clowns like you who would prefer to see Israel destroyed. Get over it Takeo.....

They are not colonies.

Yes they are, they are build in an area which doesn't belong to Israel.

They do for now, at least until such time as the Arabs will learn to live in peace and reach a negotiated settlement with Israel. Kapish Takeo?

The intifadah is actually the thing that stops them from getting out from some of the settlements which were built when Israel came to the realisation that the arabs don't want peace.

No, most settlements were build in the 70's and early 80's, and during the relatively peacefull years of Oslo. Nowadays relatively few Israeli want to live in the occupied territories, except of course the extremists. Israel only accepted the two-state solution after the first Intifadeh and after a lot of international pressure, before that labor nor Likud would even consider any withdrawel. It shows resistance was necessary. Also if Hezbollah didn't continuously attack Israeli troops in southern Lebanon during the 90's they would still be there.

The settlements were built in reaction to Arab intransigence (The Three NOs of Khartoum), after Israel realised that there is no one to talk to on the Arab side. Were they a political mistake? Yes, because it handed a propaganda coup to the Arabs and to other idiots (oops sorry I meant ideologues) like you.

Were all the settlements morally wrong? Not on your nelly! For instance, prior to 1929 there was a thriving and ancient Jewish community living in Hebron until the Arabs massacred about 70 Jews and ethnically cleaned the rest. So, the descendants of those Jews had every right to resettle Hebron after the 1967 war. And what about Gush Etzion, Takeo? Prior to 1948, there were a series of Jewish villages there which were overrun by the Arab Legion. And your Arab Palestinian buddies then massacred the survivors who surrendered. So again, the descendants of those Jews had every right to resettle their old villages after the 1967 war! And what about the old city of Jerusalem Takeo? Prior to 1948, the Jews outnumbered the Arabs in Jerusalem but again, the Arab legion overran the old city so the Jews had to flee. But after 1967, they had every right to return and settle there!

Last but not least, even Security Council Resolution 242 implies that Israel has the right to renegotiate the old 1967 boundries. It calls for Israel to return to SECURE and recognized borders, not to the old borders, get it Takeo?

[Reffo]

"It always harder to build" -- first of all, a great honest post. I'm not at all "tad pessimistic".

Its always been that way ever since Adam and Eve got kicked our of the garden.

Its always been easier for a criminal to rob or destroy. I think King David in one of his psalms (in fact all of us) have voiced the same exact complaint. But in the end, the criminal (or the ideology) will always get their due. You and I take months if not years to build a house and some criminal comes along and destroys everything in a couple of hours. The same goes for the kind of destruction and mass killings our forum Saddamite enjoys. Does that mean his kind will prevail?

You'll notice that thorughtout history Communism, Islamo-Fascists, Stalinists and Saddamites have only done nothing but destroy or steal. All of them will, or now lie in the dust bin of history -- but at one time, they sure "appeared" all powerful and strong didn't they?

scroll on down to the pictures on this website --> http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

Show this to Saddamites and watch them nerviously twitch , become lost & confused, babble uncontrollably; unable to comprehend that good -- i.e. honest labor, loving your children, saving & striving for the future -- will always prevail. In ten years the silenced forum Saddamite will find some other subject to whine about (they always do).

best regards

Yes, I do agree with you, in the long term and maybe even not so long, the tyrants and the murderers will not win. I too am optimistic but it's not an easy road. Good to see some positive articles about Iraq for a change not just all the defeatist diatribe perpetrated by lefty newspapers with an agenda.....

Keep Well...

[takeo]

Reffo

Yes, according to international law because the elected Iraqi government wants the US to stay and help them to get rid of the remnants of your Saddamist allies.

But initially the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to the UN charter. Right now indeed they are there at the request of the Iraqi government, which makes them comparable to Soviet troops in Afghanistan, which were there on the request of the communist government in Kabul. Still most Iraqi despise US-troops and support attacks against them (even shiites), you may well deny this fact but it's reality, these polls have been carried out by BBC, Brittish defense ministry, etc. so hardly any "leftist" propaganda. But please just shut your eyes for reality... Also it's abundantly clear the Iraqi government comprises of pro-Iranian people who only tolerate the US as long as they help to oppress the sunnites, but at the same time support Hesbollah and organise attacks against us-troops in shiite areas. You can describe this as a great succes all you want, you can also make Iraq a national reserve for purple elephants, as long as it makes you happy...

I have read them but not the ones that you favour.

You mean the ones carried out by American universities, the Iraqi government, Brittish ministry of defense or the BBC? No, please, just shut your eyes for reality and dream nicely.

And you should look at the number of Iraqis who turned out to vote in the elections despite the fact that your Saddamist allies and their Jihadi partners called for them to boycot the elections ..... and even threatened to murder those who didn't heed their calls....Despite that millions of Iraqis turned out to vote ....

I told you already that sunnites didn't vote and shiites did, they voted for a pro-Iranian islamist party, which militia's virtually frightened or killed off any rivals. If you want to consider that as a great succes go ahead I will grant you this one if it makes you happy...

And doesn't the prospect of stabilisation in Iraq and the American success just petrify you? Anything but that, huh Takeo?

Yes, American succes means another oppressive puppet state like Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, which sells their oil cheaply and agree to American bases and ignores its population, that's not what anyone in the middle East wants and this can only benefit Al-Quaida. However as it is now there's no sign that the current Iraqi government is an American puppet, quite on the contrary (for example only Arab state openly concluding defense cooperation agreements with Iran and supporting Hezbollah)

It could have but it didn't because it looks out for it's own security and doesn't listen to ill wishing clowns like you who would prefer to see Israel destroyed. Get over it Takeo.....

Israel's stubborn refusal to withdraw caused several intifadeh's, destabilisation and isolation of Israel and made peace in the region impossible.

They do for now, at least until such time as the Arabs will learn to live in peace and reach a negotiated settlement with Israel. Kapish Takeo?

What about Israel learning to live in peace with its neighbours? It takes two to tango. And peace of course means withdrawel from the occupied territories.

The settlements were built in reaction to Arab intransigence (The Three NOs of Khartoum), after Israel realised that there is no one to talk to on the Arab side.

That's just an excuse, Israel could have evacuated these areas if they wanted to. The reality is however that Eretz Israel ideologues didn't want to.

Were they a political mistake? Yes, because it handed a propaganda coup to the Arabs and to other idiots (oops sorry I meant ideologues) like you.

Yes, but also because it complicated peace with the palestinians even further. These colonies are a clear indication israel had no intention to leave, ever.

Were all the settlements morally wrong? Not on your nelly! For instance, prior to 1929 there was a thriving and ancient Jewish community living in Hebron until the Arabs massacred about 70 Jews and ethnically cleaned the rest. So, the descendants of those Jews had every right to resettle Hebron after the 1967 war. And what about Gush Etzion, Takeo? Prior to 1948, there were a series of Jewish villages there which were overrun by the Arab Legion. And your Arab Palestinian buddies then massacred the survivors who surrendered. So again, the descendants of those Jews had every right to resettle their old villages after the 1967 war! And what about the old city of Jerusalem Takeo? Prior to 1948, the Jews outnumbered the Arabs in Jerusalem but again, the Arab legion overran the old city so the Jews had to flee. But after 1967, they had every right to return and settle there!

It's true that there have been a few Jewish communities in the Westbank, but the people who inhabited the settlements are new migrants, not the ones who lived there earlier. Also settlements have been set up everywhere in the Westbank and Gaza, in most cases on locations where there had never been Jexwish settlements before, so again a bad excuse. Also if Jews have the right to return to areas they inhabited before 1948 so should the palestinians, unfortunately most palestinian families who have been etnically cleansed in 1948 can not return to their ancient homes and lands. So again, it's a BS argument to defend settlements.

Last but not least, even Security Council Resolution 242 implies that Israel has the right to renegotiate the old 1967 boundries. It calls for Israel to return to SECURE and recognized borders, not to the old borders, get it Takeo?

That's your own interpretation, nowhere does it say that secure borders mean anything else than the ones israel had prior to 1967. It says however that israel should stop the occupations of lands conquered in 1967, and that's quite clear, no? Recognised borders is even more clear, noone recognises israel's capture of the occupied territories, and not a single state, not even the us, has moved its embassy to Jerusalem as long as Eastern jerusalem remains, occupied, that's pretty clear too don't you think?

[nbarzelay]

Reffo
Israel's stubborn refusal to withdraw caused several intifadeh's, destabilisation and isolation of Israel and made peace in the region impossible.

No country would withdraw under threat of another war. There is no ignoring the facts in history that Israel, from its inception, has been attacked by its Arab nations whose intent was to obliterate and completely wipe out the Jewish population in many major wars.

Even you Takeo, cannot ignore these facts. The Arabs bear the brunt of the blame for not seeking stability and peace with Israel, and there is absolutely nothing you can say that exonerates the Arabs from this responsibility with your obtuse reasoning, circular logic, and diversionary tactics of let's blame the Western powers, especially the US.

And let's not forget that the last intifadah was planned by Arafat to the second looking for any excuse to bring the 'Palestinian cause' to the limelight once more.

What has the PA done with the over 30% increase in humanitarian aid from the EU from 2005 to 2006, or the 20% of overall international aid to the Palestinians from 2005 to 2006? This is not including Arab/Iranian aid, but we all know that 'aid' is mostly earmarked for weapons, training, and paying off of families of 'martyrs'...

What about Israel learning to live in peace with its neighbours? It takes two to tango. And peace of course means withdrawel from the occupied territories.

That's just an excuse, Israel could have evacuated these areas if they wanted to. The reality is however that Eretz Israel ideologues didn't want to.

No no no, Takeo. There's a reason that the West Bank withdrawl was taken off the table by Olmert. The Gaza withdrawl and it's failure to bring stability to that area. Even a thick-headed simpleton like yourself can't overlook this simple connect-the-dots puzzle involving only 2 dots!

Yes, but also because it complicated peace with the palestinians even further. These colonies are a clear indication israel had no intention to leave, ever.

It's true that there have been a few Jewish communities in the Westbank, but the people who inhabited the settlements are new migrants, not the ones who lived there earlier. Also settlements have been set up everywhere in the Westbank and Gaza, in most cases on locations where there had never been Jexwish settlements before, so again a bad excuse. Also if Jews have the right to return to areas they inhabited before 1948 so should the palestinians, unfortunately most palestinian families who have been etnically cleansed in 1948 can not return to their ancient homes and lands. So again, it's a BS argument to defend settlements.

Please, show me with the help of the special UN definition of a 'refugee', applied to only Arabs in this region who lived in the area for at least 2 years prior to 1948, that these Arabs are not new immigrants. This simply isn't the case and once again a helpless and misguided attempt at labelling the 'Palestinian Arabs' as the indigenous and sole claimants to this land.

Simply put, the Jews, in Hebron and Gush Etzion to name a few (since Rafah, a Jewish founded town, is a lost cause), settled mostly unsettled land, developed and the Arabs wanted a piece of the pie. So these Arabs attacked, massacred hundreds of settlers in riots in the beginning of the 20th century up until 1948, occupied this land until 1967 when these Arabs were kicked out of the land they themselves occupied.

That's your own interpretation, nowhere does it say that secure borders mean anything else than the ones israel had prior to 1967. It says however that israel should stop the occupations of lands conquered in 1967, and that's quite clear, no? Recognised borders is even more clear, noone recognises israel's capture of the occupied territories, and not a single state, not even the us, has moved its embassy to Jerusalem as long as Eastern jerusalem remains, occupied, that's pretty clear too don't you think?

There's a specific reason that there's no mention at all of anything pertaining to a full withdrawl to the armistice lines prior to 1967. There isn't a mention at all for this very reason that people like yourself don't use this document to demand a full withdrawl to an imaginary armistice line that has been voided since the last acts of aggression by the Arabs.

So get this other concept into your head: There is no room for different interpretations. If you have to see the document again, go ahead, just be sure not to try to apply the French version for grammatical correctness of the definitive article 'de' in the French language, since the English version was voted on and passed.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf...rea=RESOLUTION

Israel is not looking for recognition of it's borders by the Arab world, their sympathizers, or a bunch of hypocritical twats that feel guilty for their past grievances against their own country's indigenous people (whilst not realizing that the 'Palestinian Arabs' are not indigenous and well-tied to the land in the first place!).

Once again, these are not recognized 'international borders', but armistice lines. You do realize that in times of war, as seen with the changing armistice lines of previous wars, that the Arabs instigating another war (and another...) voids and nullifies the previous armistice line. If one breaks an armistice agreement, as the Jordanians did in 1949 and 1967, the adjoining armistice line adjoined to this agreement is broken!

Do you not understand this??!?! Perhaps I can draw you a nice story in pictures with you Crayola collection....do you have the metallic colors to draw the artillery pieces?

[Illuminatus]

"good will always prevail" man you sound the typical stereotype of the dumba$$$ American, you're like a cartoon personality. So you gotta love Bush to love your children and save for the future? Man, this isn't silly anymore, that's just insane.

....heh heh heh.....

Let's see, what's the score:

Your guy was tried in a court of law, convicted of genocide and hanged -- my guy is reviewing architectural plans for his presidential library.

Wailing and whining over your loss over the past four years is what I call "insane" : )

To keep you sick (nerviously twitching) and your head in the toilet this morning, I've provided couple of links to more rebuilding projects in Iraq:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...071806wm1.html

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...071906wm1.html

I could go on and on...but Mohammad Fadhil says it better in his report today:

[.. You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad’s squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn’t perfect, but it’s a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine. ..]

Today's Baghdad report

and last but not least -- BBC: Kurds prosper in post-Saddam era

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6467387.stm

With Segolene Royal's Socialist Party rising in the polls (hope she wins!) EADS/Airbus stock off by 45 percent and Saddamites nerviously twitching -- you

"Have a Nice Day!"

^_^

[takeo]

nbarzelay

No country would withdraw under threat of another war. There is no ignoring the facts in history that Israel, from its inception, has been attacked by its Arab nations whose intent was to obliterate and completely wipe out the Jewish population in many major wars.

It's right that Arab nations wanted to whipe out Israel (not necessarily its Jewish population, altough certainly massacres would have occured, as massacres did occure by the way against palestinians as well), but Israel has never sought any reconciliation, and everything it did the past decades (besides Oslo) only created more ennemies, no friends, and escalated the situation. It's probably because they were assured of powerfull overseas support.

Even you Takeo, cannot ignore these facts. The Arabs bear the brunt of the blame for not seeking stability and peace with Israel, and there is absolutely nothing you can say that exonerates the Arabs from this responsibility with your obtuse reasoning, circular logic, and diversionary tactics of let's blame the Western powers, especially the US.

Israel is to blame too, 3 out of 5 wars were initiated by Israel. Also the occupation since 1967 was not necessary from a security point of view (Israel survived well enough untill 1967 and the only it almost lost was in 1973). Also the invasion of Lebanon created additional ennemies and didn't amount to anything except a lot of additional bloodshet (ALL Lebanese, including the christians, hate Israel and support Hezbollah, according to a poll a posted on this forum), the etnic cleansing of many Arabs from israel in 1948 also wasn't exactly an act of reconcliliation and finally in 1948 Israel took much more than was given to them by the UN partition plan. In 1967 they took the rest. Israel never made any concession to the Palestinians. Compare this to the American threatment of the loosing powers Germany and Japan and you see how important it is to threat vindicated ennemies well. In 1967 it occupied Westbank, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem adhered these to israel but the populations of these areas were left out. How in your right mind would you think this policy would NOT lead to violence and destabilisation?

And let's not forget that the last intifadah was planned by Arafat to the second looking for any excuse to bring the 'Palestinian cause' to the limelight once more.

No, it was planned because Israel (Barak) was not willing to negociate about total withdrawel and a free independant palestinian state.

What has the PA done with the over 30% increase in humanitarian aid from the EU from 2005 to 2006, or the 20% of overall international aid to the Palestinians from 2005 to 2006? This is not including Arab/Iranian aid, but we all know that 'aid' is mostly earmarked for weapons, training, and paying off of families of 'martyrs'...

Israel destroyed most Palestinian institutions in 2000 and 2001. The world has to aid palestinians since Israeli make a normal economy impossible (closures, roadblocks, they are equally closed off from Arab neighbours, can't fish or navigate, etc.)

No no no, Takeo. There's a reason that the West Bank withdrawl was taken off the table by Olmert. The Gaza withdrawl and it's failure to bring stability to that area. Even a thick-headed simpleton like yourself can't overlook this simple connect-the-dots puzzle involving only 2 dots!

Of course, you can't withdraw from a piece of the occupied territories while continuing to build more settlements in the remaining (much larger) part. It's as if Saddam said in 1990 that he would only withdraw from a part of Kouweit, it would have been war anyway. Also it is foolish to withdraw without an agreement with the major palestinian groups. But since Olmert didn't want to negociate with any palestinians there was no agreement. Israel should withdraw from all the occupied territories at once in return for a palestinian and Arab recognition of Israel as well as an end to all hostilities.

Please, show me with the help of the special UN definition of a 'refugee', applied to only Arabs in this region who lived in the area for at least 2 years prior to 1948, that these Arabs are not new immigrants. This simply isn't the case and once again a helpless and misguided attempt at labelling the 'Palestinian Arabs' as the indigenous and sole claimants to this land.

This is absolutely nonsense and history falsification in pure nazi style. As I've posted several times census statistics from the Ottoman and brittish time proove that the bulk of the land was owned by palestinians, and that palestinians made up a large majority in the 30's as well as at the end of the 19th century. Of course these areas were not "inhabited", these areas have been inhabited continuously since the ancient times (except the negev desert).

There's a specific reason that there's no mention at all of anything pertaining to a full withdrawl to the armistice lines prior to 1967. There isn't a mention at all for this very reason that people like yourself don't use this document to demand a full withdrawl to an imaginary armistice line that has been voided since the last acts of aggression by the Arabs.

There's no mention because the UNSC-resolution is clear enough, withdrawel from territories occupied in 1967, and which territories have been occupied in 1967? Exactly all the ones beyond the green line...
By the way in 1967 israel started the invasion. There's no way Israel can keep these occupied territories, no reason they should (a large very hostile majority that isn't even israeli citizen, and a very costly occupation, unpopular among most israeli) and if it stubbornly refuses to do so there will never EVER be peace for Israel. Get this in your head please.

Israel is not looking for recognition of it's borders by the Arab world, their sympathizers, or a bunch of hypocritical twats that feel guilty for their past grievances against their own country's indigenous people (whilst not realizing that the 'Palestinian Arabs' are not indigenous and well-tied to the land in the first place!).

Israel is member of the UN and should apply UN resolutions if not it should withdraw from the UN and become totally isolated. Also the US refuses to move its embassy to Jerusalem since the us too supports the two-state solution and doesn't consider Eastern Jerusalem to be a part of Israel, as much as the rest of the world. (not only Europe but China, Russia, etc.) I think Israel has to make concessions and if it doesn't, it deserves war.

Once again, these are not recognized 'international borders', but armistice lines. You do realize that in times of war, as seen with the changing armistice lines of previous wars, that the Arabs instigating another war (and another...) voids and nullifies the previous armistice line. If one breaks an armistice agreement, as the Jordanians did in 1949 and 1967, the adjoining armistice line adjoined to this agreement is broken!

The problem is that Israel was recognised by the world within these armistice lines, and that noone agreed to the new armistice lines or any border correction. The map of Israel recognised by the US, and the rest of the world is pre-1967 Israel and nothing else. Noone recognises Westbank, East-Jerusalem, Gaza or Golan heights to be part of Israel, not even their closest ally the US.

Anyway, apart from all these rethorics, why SHOULD Israel keep the occupied territories from its own perspective? Certainly the majority of Israel has no warm feelings for the occupation and it causes Israel a lot of trouble. Don't tell me because of security reasons because that's nonsense, a palestinian state living in peace with israel like Jordan or Egypt would be a much better choice than the current instability. And as all polls indicate, palestinians want to live in peace with israel if israel accepts the two-state solution and withdraws. If Israel refuses to do that the responsability is THEIRS. Of course Hamas is another problem but once israel offers to withdraw from all the occupied territories in return for peace and recognition, Hamas will be forced by the overwelming majority of palestinians and the Arab world to give in and recognise Israel.

[takeo]

....heh heh heh.....

Let's see, what's the score:

Your guy was tried in a court of law, convicted of genocide and hanged -- my guy is reviewing architectural plans for his presidential library.

Wailing and whining over your loss over the past four years is what I call "insane" : )

To keep you sick (nerviously twitching) and your head in the toilet this morning, I've provided couple of links to more rebuilding projects in Iraq:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...071806wm1.html

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article...071906wm1.html

I could go on and on...but Mohammad Fadhil says it better in his report today:

[.. You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad’s squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn’t perfect, but it’s a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine. ..]

Today's Baghdad report

and last but not least -- BBC: Kurds prosper in post-Saddam era

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6467387.stm

With Segolene Royal's Socialist Party rising in the polls (hope she wins!) EADS/Airbus stock off by 45 percent and Saddamites nerviously twitching -- you

"Have a Nice Day!"

^_^

Yes yes Iraq is a model state for the region and everything is going just fine that's what you have been saying since years. However polls conducted by BBC (which I published on this forum) found that most Iraqi see a deterioration of their situation and are very pessimistic, equally about electricity, education, healthcare, etc. None of your Goebbels propaganda pieces can hide that. (by the way nice objective sources once again you use! "defendamerica.com" ...)


Yes in Kurdistan things are going better, but Kurds no longer want to be a part of Iraq, as I said previously these are the only ones who benefitted from this invasion and will soon be independant.

Anyway Saddam has never been my hero, but Bush is yours, and less than 20% of your fellow Americans support him, he's the least popular president in American history, also neo-con Rumsfeld has been sacked, next in the line is Cheney. They will all end up on the dustbin of history, exactly like Saddam.

[nbarzelay]

nbarzelay

It's right that Arab nations wanted to whipe out Israel (not necessarily its Jewish population, altough certainly massacres would have occured, as massacres did occure by the way against palestinians as well), but Israel has never sought any reconciliation, and everything it did the past decades (besides Oslo) only created more ennemies, no friends, and escalated the situation. It's probably because they were assured of powerfull overseas support.

Israel is to blame too, 3 out of 5 wars were initiated by Israel. Also the occupation since 1967 was not necessary from a security point of view (Israel survived well enough untill 1967 and the only it almost lost was in 1973). Also the invasion of Lebanon created additional ennemies and didn't amount to anything except a lot of additional bloodshet (ALL Lebanese, including the christians, hate Israel and support Hezbollah, according to a poll a posted on this forum), the etnic cleansing of many Arabs from israel in 1948 also wasn't exactly an act of reconcliliation and finally in 1948 Israel took much more than was given to them by the UN partition plan. In 1967 they took the rest. Israel never made any concession to the Palestinians. Compare this to the American threatment of the loosing powers Germany and Japan and you see how important it is to threat vindicated ennemies well. In 1967 it occupied Westbank, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem adhered these to israel but the populations of these areas were left out. How in your right mind would you think this policy would NOT lead to violence and destabilisation?

Do I have to refer to you once again to the intentions and statements of the leaders of the attacking Arab armies, clerics, imams, and other religious leaders that they did in fact intended to wipe out every Jew in the region (as their great prophet cleansed all of Saudi Arabia of Jews) and 'push them into the sea'. Pick your country.

As for initiating wars, which one are you referring to?

-1948 and 1973 were surprise attacks by the Arab invading armies

-1956, the British and French initiated the war with Egypt with Israeli help following the Nasser's nationalization of the Suez canal (and subsequent closing)

-1982 Lebanese war was initiated by the PLO's bombarding Northern Israeli towns (e.g. Metulla) and cross-border skirmishes (one clandestine attack by the PLO into TA)

-The 1967 war also followed skirmishes along the Golan Heights, pulling out of UN troops by Egypt in the Sinai, closing of the Straight of Tiran to Israeli ships, and the amassing of artillery, troops, and tanks along the Sinai and Syrian border, and the Nasser parade prior to him moving into the Sinai stating that he was going to attack Israel (not the smartest move).

You do realize what 'Acts of War' are, correct? No other country in the world would react any differently and with more restraint that Israel has shown in all the wars. You are completely -backward as usual in this matter.

Israel was and still remains the ONLY one who attempted any forms of reconciliation. Once again, refer to the leaders, including Arafat (in Arabic that is), Hamas accord, Khartoum accord, and the failure of every peace initiative on the part of the Palestinian leaders. You are completely, full of here....completely to the brim.

Who do you think arms, trains, and finances all the terrorist organizations and the countries that attack (and have attacked) Israel? N. Korea, China, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, British (in pre and during the 1948 war), etc. So don't even try to push this rubbish forth that just because the US armed Israel (for the first time during the 1973 war). Arms trading EVERBODY is guilty of, the surrounding Arabs more since they initiated ALL of the wars in their attempts to pull in the entire ME into wiping Israel off the map.

No, it was planned because Israel (Barak) was not willing to negociate about total withdrawel and a free independant palestinian state.

As in the total withdrawl of 100% of the WB although 95-97% phased withdrawl was agreed too. Phased withdrawl is needed, regardless if you disagree with it, since there were no concrete assurances and guarantees that the Palestinians would abide by such an agreement. They've broken plenty of agreements in the past only paying lip-service to 'peace', which evidently is a missing word in the Arabic language and should just be replaced permanently with the word 'hudna' instead.

Once certain levels of agreement were reached between Israel and the PLO/PA, Arafat once again pulled the 'Right of Return' card which as usual is the tactic used by the PLO/PA to not reach any agreement since the PLO/PA in reality don't want a solution, otherwise the term 'Palestinian' would disappear. Without violence and terrorism, living on handouts, keeping their people in 'refugee camps', and adhering to the everlasting Jihad against Kaffirs in the ME, the 'Palestinians' would cease to exist. (Now I will probably here some misguided, snappy quip from you to counter this).

Israel destroyed most Palestinian institutions in 2000 and 2001. The world has to aid palestinians since Israeli make a normal economy impossible (closures, roadblocks, they are equally closed off from Arab neighbours, can't fish or navigate, etc.)

What institutions? Do you mean the bomb-making factories or the houses used to smuggle weapons into the disputed territories, store weapons and terrorists?

Palestinians don't create. They've squandered away the billions of dollars in international aid to purchasing weapons, SUV's, houses, prostitutes, etc.

There wouldn't be a need for any of these roadblocks and controling of entries and exits between Israel and the disputed territories (Rafah crossing controlled by Egypt and the EU) if there weren't terrorist activities against Israel.

Of course, you can't withdraw from a piece of the occupied territories while continuing to build more settlements in the remaining ...

Israel only rebuilds areas not occupied by Palestinians and those which they were kicked out of and massacred by the invading Arab in 1948.

There is no negociating with Hamas.

Once again, there was terrorism before the 1967 war and the subsequent 'occupation' of the disputed territories, so there goes your half-assed argument, once again.

This is absolutely nonsense and history falsification in pure nazi style. As I've posted several times census statistics from the Ottoman and brittish time proove that the bulk of the land was owned by palestinians, and that palestinians made up a large majority in the 30's as well as at the end of the 19th century. Of course these areas were not "inhabited", these areas have been inhabited continuously since the ancient times (except the negev desert).

Rubbish. Nice Godwill law application in this misguided attempt. There aren't Ottoman statistics to speak of since they didn't quite give two s about the area. All we can really rely on were foreigners (no, not the Arab foreigners) who came to the Holy Land, one of them Mark Twain in the mid to late 19th century.

The land bought by the Jews were primarily bought from Arabs in absentia, as in outside of this region. The Palestinian Arab squatters can't just claim land just because they built their mud hut on it. I've provided adequate evidence to prove the contrary.

There's no mention because the UNSC-resolution is clear enough, withdrawel from territories occupied in 1967, and which territories have been occupied in 1967? Exactly all the ones beyond the green line...
By the way in 1967 israel started the invasion. There's no way Israel can keep these occupied territories, no reason they should (a large very hostile majority that isn't even israeli citizen, and a very costly occupation, unpopular among most israeli) and if it stubbornly refuses to do so there will never EVER be peace for Israel. Get this in your head please.

Go back and read the resolution again. There is NO mention of 'all' or 'the' territories occupied following the 1967 war. STOP READING THE FRENCH VERSION.

Once again, read what 'acts of war' are and what pre-emptive attack actually means.

There won't be peace with Arab muslims who don't want to negociate, recognize, and stop terrorist activities against Israeli civilian targets.

Enough with the bull, Forrest.

Israel is member of the UN and should apply UN resolutions if not it should withdraw from the UN and become totally isolated......
...

Look up what armistice lines are and what adjoining Armistice agreements pertain to. They are voided when unprovoked attack occurs again. No playing of the victim once again.

Israel shouldn't be the only one to bear the UN's one-sided resolutions and be the only one to play by the rules while these Islamist regimes can do what they wish and use their weight and oil diplomacy methods to gather support for their anti-semitic/Israel/Zionist resolutions. These Islamists dont' want a solution. Just so they can isolate Israel to the point where if Israel were attacked once again by these Islamists that the rest of the world won't lift a finger to stop this anniliation this time.

Read the rest of the post. I really don't feel like responding to the same repeating rubbish and blatant lies you spoon out.

Go give a handjob to Saddam's cohorts, this isn't a serious debate anymore.

[takeo]

nbarzelay

As for initiating wars, which one are you referring to?

-1948 and 1973 were surprise attacks by the Arab invading armies

that's right

-1956, the British and French initiated the war with Egypt with Israeli help following the Nasser's nationalization of the Suez canal (and subsequent closing)

So a clear act of aggression against Egypt, Egypt had the right to nationalise the Suez canal on its own territory, France, GB and Israel acted as colonial masters. Besides this war was even condamned by the US, go wonder...

-1982 Lebanese war was initiated by the PLO's bombarding Northern Israeli towns (e.g. Metulla) and cross-border skirmishes (one clandestine attack by the PLO into TA)

Israel could have bombed PLO bases in response but instead it started an all-out war against the entire Lebanese nation, supporting some extremist falangist militia who committed warcrimes on a large scale, backed by the IDF. For this they are still hated by all parties involved in the conflict, including the christians. Also it occupied southern Lebanon, which was the reason for the Hezbollah to be erected. And finally in 2000 the Hezbollah could defeat Israel for which they are still hugely popular all over Lebanon. israel once again didn't care too much about making friends in the region, to say the least...

-The 1967 war also followed skirmishes along the Golan Heights, pulling out of UN troops by Egypt in the Sinai, closing of the Straight of Tiran to Israeli ships, and the amassing of artillery, troops, and tanks along the Sinai and Syrian border, and the Nasser parade prior to him moving into the Sinai stating that he was going to attack Israel (not the smartest move).

You do realize what 'Acts of War' are, correct? No other country in the world would react any differently and with more restraint that Israel has shown in all the wars. You are completely -backward as usual in this matter.

closure is not an act of war, for example US-ships closed the Persian gulf for iraqi ships during the embargo, Israel regularly uses closure to harm the palestinian economy. If it's an act of war, than Palestinians have the right to kill IDF soldiers right, in response? By the way Israel wasn't cut off from the world, the red sea comprises only a tiny percentage of Israeli export and import. Any nation equally can amass troops at the border, the uS amasses battleships in the persian gulf wich is undoubtly a threat to Iran. Fact is that Israel was the first to start largescale hostilities against Egypt, which initiated the 1967 war. All the rest is rethorics and hypothesis.

Israel was and still remains the ONLY one who attempted any forms of reconciliation. Once again, refer to the leaders, including Arafat (in Arabic that is), Hamas accord, Khartoum accord, and the failure of every peace initiative on the part of the Palestinian leaders. You are completely, full of here....completely to the brim.

The failure of Oslo was not only on the part of palestinians but equally israel, the pace of land handover was much slower than convened, and Israel went on with constructing new settlements, especially under Netanyahu (who never agreed to implement Oslo).

Who do you think arms, trains, and finances all the terrorist organizations and the countries that attack (and have attacked) Israel? N. Korea, China, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, British (in pre and during the 1948 war), etc. So don't even try to push this rubbish forth that just because the US armed Israel (for the first time during the 1973 war). Arms trading EVERBODY is guilty of, the surrounding Arabs more since they initiated ALL of the wars in their attempts to pull in the entire ME into wiping Israel off the map.

As I explained to you Arabs started 2 out of 5 wars, Israel started 3 out of 5 wars. Of course you can always find excuses, hitler too said he had to invade Poland because a Polish border guard shot at the German border police and because supposedly poland was ammassing its troops...

As in the total withdrawl of 100% of the WB although 95-97% phased withdrawl was agreed too.

this wasn't the main problem, main problem was Israel wanted to keep the Jordan valley and all external borders, which would make the future palestinian state unsustainable and prone to israeli blackmail. Also Barak refused to even discuss the refugee problem, Arafat was ready to find a deal over this delicate issue (still 100's of 1000's of families have the keys of their former house) which wouldn't endanger Israel's demographic balance. Today however, as most etnically cleansed people died and their family only knows it trough their parents and grandparents, this is a less urgent issue in Palestine, but it remains a top priority for the many palestinians who live in camps outside Palestine, especially Lebanon, the Lebanese government wants to send them back to Israel as soon as possible.

Phased withdrawl is needed, regardless if you disagree with it, since there were no concrete assurances and guarantees that the Palestinians would abide by such an agreement.

It's a bad idea, as Oslo demonstrated. Total withdrawel in return for recognition of Israel and mutual agreements from state to state is the only durable solution. It means that if any palestinian attacks Israel it would be an act of aggression from one state to another, and israel could act accordingly. On the other hand, any israeli intrusion in the occupied territories would be an act of aggression as well which would draw international attention. On the border peacekeeping troops can be installed as currently on the border with Lebanon. I'm sure you do not fancy this idea because you don't want to let go the occupied territories!

They've broken plenty of agreements in the past only paying lip-service to 'peace', which evidently is a missing word in the Arabic language and should just be replaced permanently with the word 'hudna' instead.

So did the israeli leaders, it was mutual.


.

[takeo]

Once certain levels of agreement were reached between Israel and the PLO/PA, Arafat once again pulled the 'Right of Return' card which as usual is the tactic used by the PLO/PA to not reach any agreement since the PLO/PA in reality don't want a solution, otherwise the term 'Palestinian' would disappear. Without violence and terrorism, living on handouts, keeping their people in 'refugee camps', and adhering to the everlasting Jihad against Kaffirs in the ME, the 'Palestinians' would cease to exist. (Now I will probably here some misguided, snappy quip from you to counter this).

So offer them a total withdrawal and two-state solution, give them the opportunity to become a normal state on the condition of recognition (by hamas as well, as hamas represents an important part of palestinian society) and peace. But Israel never did this, as it doesn't want to give up the occupied territories.

What institutions? Do you mean the bomb-making factories or the houses used to smuggle weapons into the disputed territories, store weapons and terrorists?

institutions such as ministry of education or the palestinian president's residence, completely destroyed by Israel.

Palestinians don't create. They've squandered away the billions of dollars in international aid to purchasing weapons, SUV's, houses, prostitutes, etc.

because they live under occupation, have no chance to build a normal viable economy as long as the occupation endures.

There wouldn't be a need for any of these roadblocks and controling of entries and exits between Israel and the disputed territories (Rafah crossing controlled by Egypt and the EU) if there weren't terrorist activities against Israel.

As long as the occupation takes there will be anti-israeli actions, which is absolutely normal. Once they will be free this will stop, as the majority of palestinians want according to polls.

Once again, there was terrorism before the 1967 war and the subsequent 'occupation' of the disputed territories, so there goes your half-assed argument, once again.

yes, but the occupation complicated the situation and made it worse, it was a step backwards for peace, it was an escalation of an already tense situation.

Rubbish. Nice Godwill law application in this misguided attempt. There aren't Ottoman statistics to speak of since they didn't quite give two s about the area. All we can really rely on were foreigners (no, not the Arab foreigners) who came to the Holy Land, one of them Mark Twain in the mid to late 19th century.

I published them many times on this forum, do some research in the archives.
Do you really think noone lived in this more or less fertile land before the arrival of the Jews? So how come there are christian palestinians who can be traced back more than a 1000 year, even before the Islam invasion? You are just erasing the history of a people, making a foolish claim they never existed and their land was empty... this is propaganda is pure nazist style.

The land bought by the Jews were primarily bought from Arabs in absentia, as in outside of this region. The Palestinian Arab squatters can't just claim land just because they built their mud hut on it. I've provided adequate evidence to prove the contrary.

really, which evidence? In the 19th century almost half of the palestinians were christian, one particularity is that palestinian christians mostly have different rites compared to Syrian(Assyrian), Lebanese (maronite) or Egyptian (coptic) christians, so they could not have come from these areas, they are indigeneous, altough they speak the same language (Arabic). In the 19th century many palestinian left for Chile and many other countries, where did they come from if these lands were empty?

Go back and read the resolution again. There is NO mention of 'all' or 'the' territories occupied following the 1967 war. STOP READING THE FRENCH VERSION.

So what? "territories occupied during the recent conflict" is clear enough.

There won't be peace with Arab muslims who don't want to negociate, recognize, and stop terrorist activities against Israeli civilian targets.

And there will not be peace with Israel if Israel refuses to negociate and refuses to withdraw from the occupied territories, in that case hostilities against israel will and should go on, occupation is an act of war. Some day there will have to be a compromise, if not the war will drag on.

Look up what armistice lines are and what adjoining Armistice agreements pertain to. They are voided when unprovoked attack occurs again. No playing of the victim once again.

Israel started the 1967 war by crossing the armistice lines with Egypt, so even this argument is nonsense.

Israel shouldn't be the only one to bear the UN's one-sided resolutions and be the only one to play by the rules while these Islamist regimes can do what they wish and use their weight and oil diplomacy methods to gather support for their anti-semitic/Israel/Zionist resolutions.

Islamist attacks have been condamned by several un-resolutions as well, and the resolutions are not anti-semitic because they condamn the illegal occupation of territories by some country.
Any country in this situation would have been condamned, and most likely be punished by the international community in similar circumstances.

These Islamists dont' want a solution. Just so they can isolate Israel to the point where if Israel were attacked once again by these Islamists that the rest of the world won't lift a finger to stop this anniliation this time.

they don't have the power to annihilate Israel, palestinians just want a two-state solution according to all polls and end of occupation, but israeli leaders apparently don't want that. Israel could defeat hamas, not by military repression, which only will make it stronger, that's their "reason of being" but by offering a real solution to the palestinians, which will make hamas useless

[Reffo]

But initially the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to the UN charter. Right now indeed they are there at the request of the Iraqi government...

Saddam was a mass murderer and a war criminal. His regime was responsible for the deaths of 1 million Muslims. Prior to the invasion, everyone (even France and Russia) agreed that he was in the process of developing WMDs, the only thing that they didn't agree on was the method of disarming him. So, under the circumstances, the USA and it's allies were not willing to take risks with Saddam and his henchmen. They didn't want to wait till it would be too late to disarm that bloody regime.... They didn't want to wait for another Rwanda, another Pol Pot, the wanted to stop that criminal regime in it's tracks, before the regime would use the WMDs that they thought Saddam had or was developing. And they were right to do so because countries like France and Russia were obstructing the necessary UN resolution for political reasons, not because they didn't think that Saddam was developing WMDs!

You mean the ones carried out by American universities, the Iraqi government, Brittish ministry of defense or the BBC? No, please, just shut your eyes for reality and dream nicely.

No, these ones for instance: Click Here

I told you already that sunnites didn't vote and shiites did, they voted for a pro-Iranian islamist party, which militia's virtually frightened or killed off any rivals. If you want to consider that as a great succes go ahead I will grant you this one if it makes you happy...

A lot of Sunnis voted too but those who didn't were either the ones who were intimidated by Saddam's henchmen and the Jihadis or they were ex Baathists. And remember also that the Sunnis represent only 20% of Iraqs population. The other 80% are either Shiites or Kurds and most of them voted!

And doesn't the prospect of stabilisation in Iraq and the American success just petrify you? Anything but that, huh Takeo?

Yes, American succes means another oppressive puppet state like Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, which sells their oil cheaply and agree to American bases and ignores its population, that's not what anyone in the middle East wants and this can only benefit Al-Quaida. However as it is now there's no sign that the current Iraqi government is an American puppet, quite on the contrary (for example only Arab state openly concluding defense cooperation agreements with Iran and supporting Hezbollah)

It's interesting that both Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel. Is that what bugs you about them?!

Israel's stubborn refusal to withdraw caused several intifadeh's, destabilisation and isolation of Israel and made peace in the region impossible.

No! The Palestinian Arabs stubborn refusal to stop the violence and refusal to recognize Israel and negotiate in good faith stopped the peace process.

They do for now, at least until such time as the Arabs will learn to live in peace and reach a negotiated settlement with Israel. Kapish Takeo?

What about Israel learning to live in peace with its neighbours? It takes two to tango. And peace of course means withdrawel from the occupied territories

What?????? By turning the other cheek when Arab terrorists murder Israeli civilians????!!!!!

The settlements were built in reaction to Arab intransigence (The Three NOs of Khartoum), after Israel realised that there is no one to talk to on the Arab side.

That's just an excuse, Israel could have evacuated these areas if they wanted to. The reality is however that Eretz Israel ideologues didn't want to.

No! The Palestinian Arabs use the occupation as an excuse to continue their war to try to destroy Israel! As far as Hamas is concerned, making peace with Israel would make them lose face and for them it's tantamount to losing the war!

Yes, but also because it complicated peace with the palestinians even further. These colonies are a clear indication israel had no intention to leave, ever.

You don't know that! That's just your assertion! They have actually vacated a number of settlements and what did they get for it? Increased Palestinian violence!

It's true that there have been a few Jewish communities in the Westbank, but the people who inhabited the settlements are new migrants, not the ones who lived there earlier. Also settlements have been set up everywhere in the Westbank and Gaza, in most cases on locations where there had never been Jexwish settlements before, so again a bad excuse. Also if Jews have the right to return to areas they inhabited before 1948 so should the palestinians, unfortunately most palestinian families who have been etnically cleansed in 1948 can not return to their ancient homes and lands. So again, it's a BS argument to defend settlements.

Not true! It was the descendants of the original Jewish inhabitants who returned there after 1967. Others joined them later. But in any case, it doesn't even matter because the Jews could argue that those were Jewish owned lands, in the same way that the Arabs argue that the WB and ALL of Israel is Arab owned. The bottom line is that they will either BOTH compromise, or neither will! And the Arabs are the ones who were not willing to compromise to date...

Last but not least, even Security Council Resolution 242 implies that Israel has the right to renegotiate the old 1967 boundries. It calls for Israel to return to SECURE and recognized borders, not to the old borders, get it Takeo?

That's your own interpretation, nowhere does it say that secure borders mean anything else than the ones israel had prior to 1967. It says however that israel should stop the occupations of lands conquered in 1967, and that's quite clear, no? Recognised borders is even more clear, noone recognises israel's capture of the occupied territories, and not a single state, not even the us, has moved its embassy to Jerusalem as long as Eastern jerusalem remains, occupied, that's pretty clear too don't you think?

Actually, there are many others, prominent people and nations, who interpret it in the same way as I do.....But in any case, who says that your interpretation is the gospel truth?