What about Egypt? Will they get involved in this?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
What about Egypt? Will they get involved in this? [/quote]
Doubt it. They get too much $$$ from the US.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
I wouldn’t get your hopes up guys…
What hopes? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.[/quote]
He’s referring to Your bet concerning an “all out war” on Israel this summer.
No state is crazy enough to wanna mess with the Zionist state, and by extension the united states. There are virtually not a single chance of that happening.
I see. However, it has nothing to do with “hope.” It’s a matter of reflecting on current tensions and coming to my own conclusions. As for “betting,” it’s a figure of speech. It’s not like I’m actually getting a pool together on this.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Whats all the violence about anways? I still don’t get it.
[/quote]
It’s religion, pure and simple. Read Chris Hitchens’ book “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”
Syria attacks this summer. Israel takes out the Syrian military by fall. The rest of the Arabs stay on the sidelines.
[quote]kroby wrote:
A Lebanon / Syria / Hamas / Fatah / Hezbollah / Israel free for all?
Or all vs. Israel?[/quote]
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.
[quote]IfYouHateManUtd wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Whats all the violence about anways? I still don’t get it.
It’s religion, pure and simple. Read Chris Hitchens’ book “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”[/quote]
Chris Hitchens always has an interesting take on things, especially Islamic extremism… He should be ok as long as the queen does not knight him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_rushdie_knighthood
http://www.sacbee.com/830/story/227169.html
“In the showdown, much of the international community, including the U.S., the European Union and moderate Arab states, is backing Abbas.”
Interesting that “moderate Arab states” are backing Fatah.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.[/quote]
Israel attacked the Arabs in 67, NOT the other way around. Geez, crack a book or something.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.
Israel attacked the Arabs in 67, NOT the other way around. Geez, crack a book or something.[/quote]
Israel struck first at the massing Arab armies and in response to Egypts blockade and call to war.
Lixy, interesting contradiction. If Iran is sorounded on all sides by alleged enemies, they can do whatever it takes to protect themselves, arm terrorists, kill soldiers, ect
When Israel is sorounded on all sides by enemy troops poised to strike, Israel is wrong at doing whatever it takes to protect themselves.
Why is Iran justified in it’s actions when sorounded on all sides by an alleged aggressor, and Israel is not?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, interesting contradiction. If Iran is sorounded on all sides by alleged enemies, they can do whatever it takes to protect themselves, arm terrorists, kill soldiers, ect
When Israel is sorounded on all sides by enemy troops poised to strike, Israel is wrong at doing whatever it takes to protect themselves.
Why is Iran justified in it’s actions when sorounded on all sides by an alleged aggressor, and Israel is not?[/quote]
Listen here G. K., the Arab countries surrounding Israel have ALWAYS been there. The case of Iran is completely different because you have foreign troops of a country that’s a million miles away massing warships and building bases around it.
To give you an analogy, it’s like waking up one morning and deciding that you should attack your neighbor versus having your staircase packed with heavily armed fat bikers. Can you see the enormity of your misrepresentation?
That said, I see nothing wrong with Israel having nukes to deter eventual aggressors (though T’sahal, one the most powerful armies in the world, can be considered deterrence enough).
P.S: It’s spelled surround (as in Dolby 5.1). From Old French suronder.
[quote]lixy wrote:
P.S: It’s spelled surround (as in Dolby 5.1). From Old French suronder.[/quote]
Give this shit a rest lixy. You make far too many typos to be the resident grammar-nazi.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.
Israel attacked the Arabs in 67, NOT the other way around. Geez, crack a book or something.[/quote]
Yea, it was totally unprovoked. All the surrounding arab countries wanted was a little peace, or perhaps a little piece. They are so peaceful, just look at them today! The cradle of peace is lies in the middle east.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, interesting contradiction. If Iran is sorounded on all sides by alleged enemies, they can do whatever it takes to protect themselves, arm terrorists, kill soldiers, ect
When Israel is sorounded on all sides by enemy troops poised to strike, Israel is wrong at doing whatever it takes to protect themselves.
Why is Iran justified in it’s actions when sorounded on all sides by an alleged aggressor, and Israel is not?[/quote]
You’re asking a rational question from an irrational person. Don’t expect a rational answer. I’ll clear it up. Israel, America = very bad. Arab, muslim = very good. That in essence will be the response you get.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.
Israel attacked the Arabs in 67, NOT the other way around. Geez, crack a book or something.[/quote]
Maybe you should open a book to find out about what the fuck you are talking about.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
They tried that in 1967. “All” lost and Israel gained the west bank and Gaza. I bet they wished they didn’t.
Israel attacked the Arabs in 67, NOT the other way around. Geez, crack a book or something.
Yea, it was totally unprovoked. All the surrounding arab countries wanted was a little peace, or perhaps a little piece. They are so peaceful, just look at them today! The cradle of peace is lies in the middle east. [/quote]
Pat36 - another good question for Lixy would be whether he would insist on France changinng its borders with Germany back to pre-WWII status?
Something about to the victor go the spoils…
Listen here G. K., the Arab countries surrounding Israel have ALWAYS been there. The case of Iran is completely different because you have foreign troops of a country that’s a million miles away massing warships and building bases around it.
Depends how far back you want to go. Jews were living in Israel and got kicked out by the Romans hundreds of years before Muhammad was born.
According to you, there have been Jews in Palestine living peacefully under Muslim rule for centuries. Jews were historically treated better under Muslim rule than Christian rule, correct?
Next:
You’ve got al-qaeda nutjobs saying they are going to take back Spain, because it was once Muslim ruled. That logic is totally justifiable to them.
But let the Jews reclaim their Holy Lands and a Holy war is unleashed on them.
As far as Americans massing it’s troops around Iran. We’ve discussed it to death on other threads and it’s a dead issue as far as I’m concerned. The Iranian government should know damn well why we are in Afghanistan, can’t say I can say the same for Iraq, but I’m sure it wasn’t to encircle Iran. If we are so powerful, as you claim, why didn’t we just attack Iran in 2004 if that is what we wanted to do?
So, following your logic, if Kosovo is given statehood and is a majority Muslim state, and Serbia massed troops on it’s borders to attack it again, this new state should let itself be invaded because it is a new state after all and Serbia has been there for centuries?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
As far as Americans massing it’s troops around Iran. We’ve discussed it to death on other threads and it’s a dead issue as far as I’m concerned. The Iranian government should know damn well why we are in Afghanistan, can’t say I can say the same for Iraq, but I’m sure it wasn’t to encircle Iran. [/quote]
Dead issue or not, it’s the one you tried to compare to the events of 67. I guess you already realized the huge difference between the two situations. And my complaint was not about Afghanistan, but rather the recent deployment of ships sitting miles off the Iranian coasts. You might have missed Cheney’s speech on one of the aircraft carrier that laid out the motives behind the deployment: ?With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we?re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,? he said. ?We?ll keep the sea lanes open"