KrustyKidd

AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Any other Resolution they might be talking about? They lived it. Adhered to the borders until forced to defend themselves against those who did not adhere to the Resolution. Why would they? They're still at war with people who can't even make peace much less keep it. Look it up. Intifada, Hamas Charter. Hamas has no intention but the to destroy Israel which would mean of course, wholesale slaughter of every Israeli. Look it up *** ***. Nope. They were intrumental in much of the avionics of them though I'm sure. Just as they make guidence systems for WACS and unmanned aircraft and missiles. Oh, they also make small arms and ammo too. Holy! Now you are beginning to get it! It's good for the US and, good for Israel. See, like I said, if the US stops, then Israel will get the money from somewhere be it cutting back on border openings, guards and such and rather just wall off Gaza and forget about it. Oh, so now you're going to move the sixth fleet from the Med to the Persian Gulf. That'll be a half trillion. And what will you replace the sixth fleet with to counter the Russian presence that now uses Haifa as a port? And how long will it take to build the facility in Port Said in Egypt to take a Carrier Group? Holy. By the time this is over the entire geopolitics of the world will have changed. Sixth fleet has never been there. They are the Mediterranean Fleet. They need Israel to support Iraq ops as Israel is closer to Iraq than another facility in Naples is. You do know what Qutbism is don't you? Really has nothing to do with Israel or the west but rather purity of, Safelism. Jews and the west are only the vehicle with which they wish to promulgate their power. Look up Al Qaeda and the Caliphate, Safelism and Qutbism. And Iraq was of a scant threat to Israel when the US legally invaded in order to place direct pressure on Saudi Arabia to confront their Qutbist infestation. ** Edited to remove strong personal inflection.

Care to back this one up Dub? Considering that even you agree the three billion is in the form of defense, it hardly goes towards social programs, iunterstate maintenance, Amtrak, US postal services and such that an American citizen benifits from directly from their own tax dollars. If I recall the government of Palestine was firing rockets into Israel from positions within the area where Israel attacked in order to stop it. When Palestinians are ready to talk peace with good faith then they should have their land. Until then, somebody may as well make use of it. It was 150 something per square km in 1980. So much for the illusion of genocide. Israel with all their superiority and military power cannot possibly be deliberately attempting to exterminate Palestinians by your own figures as they have increased four fold. Have the Palestinians as one voice ever accepted the UN Resolution 181? If not, since they attacked Israel who did accept it, are still in a state of war with Israel who has every right as a defender against a hostile force to use whatever ground necessary to support and defend themselves with. You are a foul mouthed bigot. Every thread you possibly can, you interject your hatred of Jews into it. Your opinion is tainted and your proof is nonexistent. While Bonam's fact's may not be 100%, they are far superior to the ones that you make up out of thin air mixed with hatred.

Here is their declaration of independence. If you bother to compare the border of Israel with the UN resolution borders you will find them the same. Hence, the agreed. The Arabs did not. Not even to this day. Heck, they invented much of the stuff so sure, makes sense to me. And, like many counties they are allowed to purchase arms from the US. I take it you prefer them to buy from the Russians? That would be a pretty unlikely scenario as they supply virtually all the captured Soviet and Russian equipment to the US for examination so the Russians would be less than amiable to have their purchased equipment torn apart and sold for intelligence. Like where Dub? Where are you going to place a multi billion dollar port facility to dock your carrier group for resupply while being close to Saudi Arbia, Syria, Iraq but not actually being there? And, have all the spare parts you need for your aircraft, missiles, and not have to worry about quality of same. Even have strategic aircraft resupply without having to put up with hate America parades. Heck, the troops can even get off and go have a beer without having to put up with being accused of soiling holy land. They do. Besides the 1981 Memorandum of Understanding and the fact that Saudi Arabia is now taboo ground to launch actions against other Arab nations, from, none of them are equipped with state of the art facilities to work on equipment that they themselves helped develop like Israel has done. Aside from ensuring that the Russians will never gain a foothold in their territory, defeating Russian equipped hostile neighbors, providing port facilities complete with US stored equipment, joint Special Forces training, shared intelligence against common enemies, joint sharing of technoligical defense industries, taking out threats to regional and world security such as Iraq's, Syria's and soon, Iran's nuclear facilities - none I suppose. Egypt could do that right? Soon as you actually get them to build the infrastructure to equip themselves with US weapons, get the technology to buid same, cease all alliances with any non US friendly country so that technology won't be shared, build a world wide and worl class intelligence service that you can tap inot then all will be just great. Until then, Israel is the only country that can do it. Cut them off, now they move towards the Russians or the Chinese, offering them maintenance facilities and shared technologies. You're now stuck resupplying yourself a thousand miles away in Naples while the Russkis get a new port of call in Haifa.

They did though right up until they were attacked. Check out the map of Israel from the mandate to the 15 May 1948. Israel adhered to the borders thus proving you wrong. Israel does not get all of it's military hardware in the form of aid. Most of it they make themselves, some they buy from the US and some they buy from other countries. The amount of aid is three billion, or, 1-1/2% of their economy, not 20% of their military budget. Because if Israel was not there, they would have to pay money to whatever was there in the form of aid anyhow, as well as provide military support to keep it from being toppled by unfriendly entity. As well, they would have to construct or modify another port to accept their carriers and, find a closer place than stateside for spare parts. All of this would cost them far more than the aid which they give Israel. On top of that, what the US does with it's own savings or money has nothing to do with your argument. What comment should I refrain from providing Dub?

That's right you didn't and is why I said that you tried to say they. If you meant that they accepted it at one time and then, once they realized the Arabs were attacking them (the Israelis as you know maintained the Partition borders from the passing of Res 181 until they were attacked in '48 by the Arabs) there was no option other than to fight back from defensive positions and, to take, and hold ground, then now would be a good time to clarify it. So, can you clarify when the Israelis accepted partition please? And how much of a dent would three billion put on a country with an economy of $200 billion? As I stated earlier, without that aid, Israel could easily make up the shortfall by charging more for the essential services they provide the US. As for you contention of the US mothering Israel, there is a reason for it other than Jewish support. Israel saves the US big dollars by securing that portion of the Middle East from Russian,. Qutbist and other destabilizing factors. This saves the US from having to maintain an expensive political and military presence there.

Huh? I actually think he's doing a pretty good job Waldo. Where on earth do you get the idea I believe he is not? Provide some evidence please, just to prove you're not just shooting in the dark. Sort of like the 1990's thing you have going below with Clinton and Limbaugh huh? Waldo Waldo, Limpbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and Hannnity are talk show hosts. Obama is the President of the USA. Are you going to try to compare the President with celebrities for some weird reason? Wondering, how does he stack up against Batman Waldo? I mean, you seem to be tumbling over the show biz and reality line here so you must also include Hollywood characters in your research. Obama never ran anything other than a social programs and funds which by their nature, could never fail. So, shades of dodging the issue of the thread. Palin has the experience, average approval ratings, history of success and is now, gaining more federal experience. Obama had none whatsoever and is now riding on his predecessors coat tails while giving the illusion he is not. Tell me Waldo. What was the population of Obama Ville, it's budget, it's crime stats, his ...... well, guess he had no executive experience. How many rapes were there in Obama Ville? Robberies? Oh that's right, there's no such place as Obama Ville. Nor was there ever. In fact, he was never even dog catcher rather, he handed out government money to charity and vied for more of it. He came up cold turkey with no experience whatsoever and then threw his supporters under the bus and carried on with Bush's policies. Albeit with new rhetoric but, the same policies nonetheless.

It is . And I gave you an analogy about how Obama is viewed as successful despite the fact that 'he can't dance - he has no game. Outside of a well scripted rehearsal/study session' and, only that with a teleprompter. So, since Obama can do it without a shred of executive experience, why would you think she, with her years of the experience he lacks and, average approval ratings that would make even Barry drool, cannot?

Another classical left wing fallacy. This is reminiscent to the argument where you tried to say that Israel immediately rejected Partition and had to be shown the errors of your bigotry. Now for this revisionism based on hatred, please show us how three billion being withheld from Israel will have any disastrous effect on it's fifty billion per year economy when all they have to do is lower support fore Palestinians, scale back on defense and make the shortfall up by building a wall as well as charge the US more for use of it's port facilities.

At the end of the day all Obama has is Bush's former policies he simply continues, accompanied by a few diaphragm launched 'hope and change' speeches.

I agree. As well, something that I have maintained since her campaign is that when one reflects on her political career, she is fairly ruthless in her climb and, even competes with the way Barry throws former supporters under the bus. However, to me, one of the biggest attractions for me is also one of the things I fear the most. She owes no allegiance to anybody or anything hence, she would be a loose canon who has no problem just firing those whom she no longer needs.

You said the regime tortures dissidents. Some consider any discomfort as torture hence, the inhumanity need only reach a mild discomfort level as in a cold cell.

Holy shit. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands to stop his original from being seen he could have just shown it and averted this senseless act of violence. The change ($100.000) could have gone to the Palestinians who would have spent it in humanitarian ways to make peace with Israel and build a future.. Oh Lord, the humanity. Obama, show the original and save the Palestinians for crying out loud. And, before the wackos kill again!

Kept in a cold cell and put into a box with a benign caterpillar. The humanity!

The cornerstone of the Hamas charter is no negotiations with Israel or the international community. On the other hand, many successive Israeli governments have accepted the idea of a Palestinian ste under certain conditions such as recognizing their right to exist. This along with the Palestinian's immediate refusal of partition and then making war on the Israelis who did accept it. Tell me Dub, why do you support Palestinians who wage hatred rather than those who do advocate for peace? I certainly don't advocate continued settlements but, the way it is going, Palestinians will never accept any peace whatsoever so why not?

Dub That's bull. Compare the Partition map to the borders pre Arab attack 1948. They're the same. It wasn't until the guys who didn't accept partition outright and, the borders as drawn out attacked en mass against the guys who accepted the borders and, would have accepted partition if the Palestinians had also changed all that by defending themselves against annihilation. Dub Oh no. Not at all. Dub (quoting me out of context) so yeah, anyway, what you're saying is that they didn't accept it. When in fact, the entire quote reads; Do you not think that Israel adhering to the borders and then being attacked by six Arab armies intent on destroying them the day after the Mandate ended makes it rather difficult to adhere to partition? And I never said the resolution was never passed. I said that the Israelis accepted it in principal (as proven by their adherence to the borders until they were attacked) and the Arabs, including the Palestinians outright refused all of it - from the day it was tabled - resolution, partition and two states. Israel remained in it's borders until they were attacked at which time, the borders changed to take defensive and offensive positions into consideration. Remember, all the Arab countries were hostile and up to present day, none have made serious peace agreements save Egypt and Jordan. Hence, the continual occupation of defensive territory against hostile forces is logical and proper. Edited to add: Since you are fond of quoting the odd Gurion quips, here is one from the other side; Since some are fond of Gurion quotes, I offer this one; So true.

Where did I say they ever did? I said that the Arabs immediately trashed it so there was no partition to accept or decline. What I have said is that they were willing to accept it but the Arabs immediately said no. Here, read again In short, although willing to accept it or, at least negotiate, it was impossible for them to do so as the Arabs pulled the plug on any sort of partition or implementation of Resolution 181.

Ben Gurion was willing to accept the partition even though he would have negotiated for more land. In Kuzadd's mind, that is more of a mortal sin than outright refusing partition altogether. Hence, in order to support his prejudicial view of the world as it is, he has to try and re write history.

Israel never recognized the borders as the partition never occurred. Want to know why partition never occurred, despite the majority of Jews as well as Ben Gurion wanting it? Because the Arabs refused it outright. No negotiation, no talks, no agreement. Simply no to UN Resolution 181, the Partition of Palestine. That is an historic fact. Look up Res 181 on the UN site. See who voted against it.

Why don't you just face it, the Arabs rejected partition outright. The majority of Jewish groups including Ben Gurion were in favor of it with Gurion simply wanting more land. The Jews accepted the resolution in principal, the Arabs outright rejected it in it's entirety. Ben Gurion 14 may 1948, seven months after the Arabs rejected partition and the day before Israel became their own country.

And I'm covering this one. There was no borders as the Arabs refused the resolution even though the Israelis were willing to accept it. Hence, since the Arabs outright opted out of this altogether, the Israelis were bound to honor nothing. Now, back to your contention: Kuzadd's contention So wondering, since an agreement was destroyed by the Arabs, how could the Israelis, who were willing to work with it, reject it since it became instantly (along with any responsibility to honor borders drawn out in the resolution) non existent upon Arab rejection?

I never said that Israel accepted something that was nonexistent. They accepted the resolution in principal and, were willing to work with it until the Arabs rejected it outright. At that point, there was no resolution or borders to accept. Once again; Global Security Israeli War of Independence Your contention; Reality is Palestine had defined borders , when the UN partitioned Palestine, they were rejected immediately by the Arabs while the Israelis were willing to work with the resolution.

Very good counter analogy Dub. Kudos!

The idea of withdrawing US support also withdraws control. I for one would not like to see Israel backed into a corner.

Do try to keep quotes in context Dub. Here is the complete quote.........

The Arabs rejected it outright. The Jews agreed with it. Your hisotory is faulty. You said They were not. It was the Arabs who rejected it immediately. Once you acknowledge that, you will be able to debate with knowledge and thus, contribute positively to the forums.