Moonbox
-
Posts
8,666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
It's a matter of trust. There is a code of conduct I'm sure CRA employees must follow, much like at a bank, where you don't act like an ass and access people's info without reason or authorization.
When people break that trust, they should be summarily dismissed and criminally charged if the breach warrants it.
-
Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that. Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.
Is this another argument about fighters being obsolete because of nuclear weapons? If so you're missing the point entirely.
-
You did get the point.
Not only Harper but also Bush and Obama have no power to negotiate a fair price of F-35 from the CEO and MBAs of Lockheed Martin because they were facing a monopolistic supplier.
There are numerous fighter manufacturers in the US. The US military makes them compete for the best design. Once the best design is determined and you start production, that's the end of the competition. We're not talking about bartering for goats or anything here. We're talking about aircraft that take 10+ years to develop and will be in service for 30+ years.
I'm suspicious that the raise of the price of F-35 is just for spitting on Obama's and Gates's faces for the cancellation of the orders of the rest F-22s. It is still unbelievable to me that the Pentagon did have put all its eggs in one basket.
Your suspicion is pretty dumb then. The manufacturers live and die on the goodwill of the US military and its administration and any move like that would be like biting the hand that feeds you. The F-35 itself largely based on F-22 design anyways.
As for all the eggs in one basket, it's called economies of scale. If you can get one fighter to do the job of 4 different designs, you save ass tons of money.
What would happen if the plane had some flaw so it had to be suspended from flight for several months during in service? The airspace of the most of NATO members would be defenceless, and even America itself would have to count on merely 184 F-22s.
Why don't you leave that up to the science geniuses who designed the plane and the years of testing they do on it?
-
What we seem to be struggling to understand is what once a label has been created it can be stretched to fit any view.
Agreed. As soon as I see 'Zionist' or anti-Semitic labels get tossed around, the strength of any argument the speaker makes erodes into nothing.
I know we don't generally agree on anything related to Israel Myata, but there ya have it...
-
Yeagh right, just because you said so everybody is supposed to nod in agreement, thoughtfully.
As I said, if you deny it's happened I'd be happy to provide CENTURIES of examples. You can continue to close your eyes, plug your ears and scream loudly, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
It could also result in one or more parties continuing their hostilities under the veil of peace process. Not like it didn't happen before, so there isn't much point in going there again.
It's not like anyone would be in a worse position than before is it?? So why not try? With a signed treaty in hand, the Arab League would be able to literally FLAY the Israelis on moral grounds if the Israelis broke it. Only their own stupidity thus far has prevented Israel's enemies from embarrassing it into a settlement.
With their land taken daily even as negotiations proceed they certainly wouldn't be negotiating from equal position.
Negotiations are pretty much never done from an equal position. Perhaps a little extra time in the real world will reveal that to you.
So you'll have to clarify it for us: do you also see allowing them to lop rockets into Israel in return for appropriation of their land? And Israel to conduct disproportionate retribution operations in return? And so on... as a colourful background to genuine peace negotiations?
My god man. Think about it. If the negotiations are seeking assurances that the hostilities you list above are ended, how can ending them be PRE requisites of the negotiations???? It doesn't even make sense. You can't have the objectives of the negotiations be the pre-requisites for the negotiations. That's the most bizarre logic I've ever seen here. That's not even something I can argue with. You're operating an a completely different magical plane of thinking....
Or maybe you'd want to insist that attacks on Israel stop unconditionally and completely, while in its turn it would be allowed to proceed with its landgrab policies unabated? Which scenario is closer to your idea of honest negotiation?
No I would simply insist that if the other side wants Israel to stop the landgrab and return occupied lands, they'd have to negotiate with Israel a set of conditions upon which Israel would agree to do exactly that. It's not rocket science here man.
The fact that the Arab League is willing to offer a peace proposal (a bad one but whatever) WHILE Israel continues its landgrab should stand as proof that the process CAN happen during ongoing hostilities.
-
The conditions are pretty obvious...
1. Israel ends the occupation and dismantles illegal settlements.
2. Palestine ends ALL hostilities and recognizes Israel with no reservations or caveats.
Yeah I can see that working. If the Arab League proposed (and could enforce) something like this (without all the other conditions they've previously discussed) I'd be disappointed if the Israelis didn't accept it.
-
I wouldn't though, nor would I advise it to anybody in their right mind.
Clearly your advice isn't worth anything then because, like I already said, it's been done for thousands of years successfully all over the world.
Honest negotiation necessarily implies some minimal level of trust to the partner and no such trust could exist if you are being robbed even as negotiations are taking place.
Hostile negotiations occur under the assumption that a signed treaty would be respected and witnessed by the whole world. The best part is that, particularly on the Arab side, they'd be giving up nothing but words. If Israel broke any treaty, it would be witnessed by all and Arab militants could denounce any concessions they made on the grounds of treaty violations, and go right back to launching rockets and threats.
Could it be perhaps that as happens here you confused the words (negotiation with capitulation)? They sound quite similar indeed.
Capitulation generally involves terms imposed on the losing side and is associated with a surrender. The Arab side isn't surrendering. Negotiating often means both sides don't get everything they want.
Well does it mean what your earlier interpretation suggested? Keep reading carefully and you'll find the answer, hopefully.
I didn't have an earlier interpretation. You made a claim and still haven't been able to reference it. Show us where the international community has indicated the pre-reqs for negotiation.
-
However, as we just established here, Israeli government itself is involved in aggressive and hostile acts advocated by these parties, giving us all the reason to think that no one sides is predominantly guilty of perpetrating hostilities, at least, not anymore.
Unless you didn't type properly it almost seems like you said both sides are in the wrong and both sides perpetrate hostilities, in which case you're right and also we may be making progress here.
So again, you are saying that some words should be held equivalent to acts
Absolutely. Especially when we're not merely talking about 'words', but rather threats of violence from people and groups who have loooong history of ACTING on them. A respectable court of law would also punish an offender for those 'words' the same way it would for deprivation of property, since you cling so hard to 'law' in your arguments.
No, that assumption is entirely yours. I only said that each act must be judged on its own: illegal expansion as a manifestation of aggressive intents, while absense of militancy - well, absense of militancy. By militancy I of course mean not only actual attacks but any serious activity on preparation and execution thereof. However it has to be proven, in an objective manner, rather than taken for granted as common knowledge.
International law has been your crutch all throughout this argument, but we all know how impotent and largely irrelevant it is. Keep clinging to it if you like, but since it won't be applied or enforced (on either side), it's pretty pointless.
Great idea. And it'll work with one minor addition that all serious acts of hostility must cease before meaningful negotiations of a lasting settlement could begin in any honesty. Can't negotiate with somebody who keeps robbing you even as you "negotiate" as was the case on all such earlier occasions.
Yes. You absolutely can negotiate amidst hostilities. Most conflicts throughout history have been resolved in such a way. We have hundreds of years of history to show it can work. A lot of these peace settlements, in fact, were largely inequitable. The whole point of a negotiation is that both sides get something they want and end up (hopefully) better off than when they started.
Much of what you're saying is new to me, so I'll have to research some more details on this.
Fair enough, but read the terms of the proposal carefully and hopefully you'll see why they're simply impossible. The fact that it's non-negotiable according to the Arab League leaves some serious questions as to the intention of the proposal and in what sort of faith it was made.
Of course, no serious negotiations are possible while massive hostilities are ongoing.
Wrong. If I have to I could probably go over hundreds of years of history throughout which what you say is impossible happened on a regular basis.
Well, this (highlight mine -m) is not what was said, nonetheless. So now you either enroll in English comprehension therapy, or explain here the meaning of lying or shall we say, misinterpreting and misrepresenting?
Oh? Let's go over this again...
Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace.
That's exactly what you said. I asked for a citation of that and you just gave me a list of hundreds of UN resolutions. I'll even let you go on the 'illegal practice' part but I need to see a reference from you still on what the conditions are for serious peace talks, because I really think you're out to lunch there.
-
Palestinian parties are no more unanimous in hostility to Israel, than Israeli parties - to the state of Palestine.
The Israeli government dictates the policies of its military and it controls its militants. The Palestinians do not, nor do they control what its neighbours policies are.
Indeed there's no bottom that would be low enough if one seeks hard. Not sure it could be used as any sort of moral justification as it could justify anything. Absolutely anything.
It's not a justification as much as it highlights how silly the other side's proclamations are. That's what groups like Hamas and Iran say they intend to do. Unfortunately they're unable to do it. Imagine if Israel actually had the same intentions.
And so, Israel's aggression (landgrab) demonstrates "restraint" while lack thereof from the other side - obviously aggressive intentions?
I'm simply saying that having your intentions thwarted at every turn does not give you the moral high ground as you seem to assume.
Wow, admitting the obvious is a huge step forward here. The next question is, what are we going to do about it.
What is anyone going to do about it? Aside from trying to mediate, nobody is going to do anything. Like most conflicts going on right now in the world, the UN etc will stand back and watch.
Rationalizing Israeli reasons, are we also going to look at those on the other side? Or come up with policy based on objective view of the situation, encouraging both side to make steps toward peace and censoring them for acts of aggression in any form and regardless of affinities and affiliations?
Well there's an idea now. Yes. If both sides would come to the table and make concessions we'd be in a lot better shape. Unilateral demands and/or peace proposals, however, aren't going to work.
Again, reasons to continue hostilities can be found on either side, especially when looking hard enough. The question is what we do about it, and we have only free choices: contribute to the cycle of hostility; remain neutral; or encourage both sides to break it.
Well I think the last option is best. All we can do is mediate, however, because arbitration and enforcement are not really options.
So because it has that contentuous issue it can be dissmissed out of hand without as much as meaningful comment, in ten or so years? Sounds like a truly and creadibly peaceful position, does it?
The Arab League killed the proposal before it even had a chance. There have been plenty of responses from the Israeli side. Ehud Olmert (former Prime Minister) acknowledged it and invited the Arab League to discuss it further. Unfortunately, those 'contentious issues' we're talking about were non-negotiable. The Arab League has indicated that the proposal must be accepted before any further dialogue takes place. It wasn't a serious peace proposal. It was an ultimatum disguised as a peace proposal and was pure publicity.
Again, and for the umpteenth and last time I'm calling for objective, fact based view on the situation, encouraging parties for each positive development and censoring every hostile act on its own merit.
Okay. Let's list the facts:
1. Both sides are hostile to the other. Neither side is innocent.
2. Nobody is willing (or able) to take serious action to stop the conflict for all sorts of reasons
Any discussion from there is going to have to take those two 'facts' into account and that both sides are going to have to NEGOTIATE. Otherwise they'll keep doing whatever they please and nobody is going to stop them. If one side refuses to negotiate, regardless of who it is, the whole thing is a non-starter.
But it's been provided in the form of the list of countries that support Israel's right to the occupied lands (none - except Israel itself).
Oh no you don't champ. That's not the reference I was asking for. You specifically stated that the the majority of the world has indicated that prior to ANY negotiation taking place, Israel must withdraw from occupied lands. You said it. I want to see the reference for it. Otherwise you're talking out of your butt, making things up and flat out lying. Recognition of Israeli rights to occupy the land have NOTHING to do with the pre-reqs for negotiation.
-
Its not a matter of IL being "morally bankrupt" either.
The problem with the enforcement regime is that there never should have been vetos.
It is morally bankrupt. It picks and chooses which conflicts to pay attention to and generally does nothing even when no veto is used. Fact is the VAST majority of humanitarian crises have seen the UN turn a blind eye with or without a veto.
-
Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible
What are you even talking about? Are you proposing that if the US wasn't there the other members of the UN would take action in Sudan? Would they intervene in Congo etc? Would they enforce peace in Sri Lanka and Indonesia?
Simply put, they wouldn't bother/try. The UN is both toothless and spineless and it has proved it time and time again over decades. The same stands for international law. The truth is that Israel and Palestinian violations are small potatoes compared to many other parts of the world.
-
Jack demans and carries on about lots of things. Most of us learned to ignore everything he says a loooooong time ago.
-
If they want to maintain at least the appearance of being interested in a peaceful resolution, they should.
Same goes for both sides. You can't promise and proclaim death and destruction against the other side for 50 years without letting up and appear interested in peace.
But wait, you still haven't posted any evidence of them "not holding back".
Please stop dodging and hiding behind childish and irrelevant technicalities. What evidence do I need to provide of Israel's restraint other than the fact that Israel (being the overwhelmingly superior military power in the region) has not left Palestine, Syria, Jordan etc in a smoking ruin or annexed those regions into its territory and imposed Jewish (rather than Islamic) law on the whole region? That's what Israel's enemies have indicated they're going to eventually do to it. They've already tried several times in fact.
I can't claim 100% accuracy but I read international media daily and in several sources, and according to my view of the situation - and I'll be certainly grateful for any factual updates on that, there haven't been any serious attacks on Israel proper for a while now
You seem to really be having problems with this concept...so I'll explain it again for the 12th time. Arab attacks against Israel are responded to harshly. It's a 'fact' that every Arab attack against Israel results in the Arab side getting its ass handed back to it. The lack of violence by Arab militants is more due to an inability to effectively commit it, combined with a strong sense of fear, rather than any restraint on their part. Both Arab intentions made clear by they themselves, and about 50 years of factual history, support this assertion.
bottom line is, you can't any longer claim this "defence" or "retaliation" excuse for granted, without factual evidence that attacks on Israel proper, in the scale anywhere near Israel's actions in the occupied territories are still taking place. And that's what our convention shall be: analysis of situation based on objective, factual reports.
I'm not claiming to defend the Israeli settlement expansion. Again, for the 12th time, I'll make it clear. The settlement expansion is not promoting peace. It's clearly doing the opposite. What I'm merely saying is that Israel probably sees little reason to stop it or make concessions to people who've over the last 50 years invaded their country, as well as promised and delivered violence against them.
"Ignore" and "commit gross violations" itself are soooooooo diffrent things. You know it for sure, so why waste my time explaining it to you?
We're talking about two different things here. You poo-pooed the fact that Israelis live in fear and I asked if they should ignore threats made against them? Should they not take those threats seriously given that history supports the likelihood of their Arab neighbours to ACT on those threats? Should not the international community ALSO take those threats seriously?
Stop bringing up the settlement expansion for god's sake. I've acknowledged it. I don't think it's right either. I simply can't think of a compelling reason for them to stop aside from it being the 'right' thing to do. If that's going to be the basis of our argument, however, and we're going to get into morality and the west taking meaningful action to uphold human rights etc, you'd also have to consider the fact that the majority of the Middle East is a cesspool of violations and taking action against Israel alone would be pretty blazen hypocrisy.
"The Arab world" has also come up with a comprehensive peace proposal. It what you want to see (and feel), and claim as justification for absolutely unjustifiable by a civilized nation behaviour.
The Arab peace proposal was poison-pilled from the beginning. As already mentioned, the unilateral demands from the Arab League in regards to refugee settlements dating back to 1949 were a joke. Read the entire proposal, and if you still think it was a proposal made in good faith I'd be happy to go over it with you point for point and shed some light on it. They knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be accepted and they offered it anyways for publicity's sake.
Oh we do remember the existence of "law" after all? So does it address threats in the same way as actual violence? Or maybe justifies real deadly violence as response to verbal threats? Or maybe, allows to take somebody's possession and claim it for own?
Actually, no, I don't acknowledge the relevance of international law. Since it's enforced selectively and only when convenient, it's morally bankrupt. If, however, you insist on using it as a crutch for your argument, I'll happily show you how even legally you're arguing on pretty wobbly ground.
To answer your question, however, uttering threats is a punishable offence with a sentence of up to 5 years in jail. So yes, the Law does address threats, and fairly harshly at that. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that the Law doesn't even care if the party uttering the threats is capable of acting on them. If, for example, a 90 pound girl was threatening to beat the crap out of a 250 pound man, she'd go to jail if she was prosecuted. God forbid she actually TRY to hurt (or kill) the man, howevever, and she ends up on the losing side. In this case the man would have to prove self defense to get off clean and the woman, providing she survives, would still go to jail.
Now all of this legal balogna is pretty irrelevant because we've already established the impotence of international law. The principles the legal issues are similar, however. The implications of being surrounded by hostile neighbours calling for your death are real. They cause undo fear, stress, financial burdens and countless other problems, particularly when the threats are being uttered by people prone to act on them.
I'm certainly not saying this 'justifies' settlement expansion on the Israeli side, but it clearly does constitute ongoing hostilities from the other side. There's decades of enmity between them and you're never ever going to resolve the conflict by playing the blame game.
No a little more specifically, please, you think that because they occupy these lands they somehow have rightful possession of them? Because you can't "trade" something that doesn't belong to you, in an honest deal can you?
Nobody said anything about 'rightful' possession.
It did though, not in the least through numerous UN and UNSC resolutions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel). And now you have to prove that it's false, i.e there's a country in the world that recognises Israel's claim to the occupied terrtories.
You've just quoted a wikipedia page that lists 100+ UN resolutions and doesn't summarize the majority of them. The burden of proof is on you. Show me where, as you claim, the international community at large has proclaimed that Israel has to withdraw from occupied territories before peace talks can even BEGIN. That was your claim, so back it up.
-
What do you want to bet nothing comes out of this?
-
We have dumped hundreds of millions into this F35 program already. It would seem a shame not to buy any of them, but on the other hand we could get almost two for the price of one with Boeing and the F18 Super Hornet. So instead of getting 65 birds we would get 130 birds. Food for thought.
The F-18E is an upgrade, but not really a meaningful one for Canada. It will soon be outclassed by numerous other fighters coming to the market and by the time we replace our current fleet of F-18's it will be getting old itself. The F-35 is SIGNIFICANTLY better in almost all aspects. Also, 130 fighters will cost quite a bit more to service and maintain than 65 --- by billions. Food for thought.
Meanwhile I would suggest that we need to deal with coastal defenses immediately. For that all we need do is construct what amounts to as a non-drilling platform that can be towed off shore and secured as a early warning intervention system.
Coastal defenses??? We have about 75 years of history now to show that static defenses are pretty much useless.
What I am suggesting is something of a longer and more infrastructural plan for our military instead of some knee jerk reaction to a perceived need or threat. We need a comprehensive national defense strategy.
Unfortunately our military and its budget are not large enough for marginal and gradual equipment upgrades to our air force.
-
The voters will have to decide whether he's earned it. As for the rest, it's a bunch of CPC talking points. I'm pretty sure he's got quite a long history of holding principles, in fact he's written quite a few books. Perhaps you should read them.
Writing books and articles has nothing to do with 'holding' principles. It's a matter of practising what you're preaching. You can preach all you want but unless you practise it's all irrelevant.
No history in politics? Here I thought Canadians were getting tired of the old breed. No history of leadership? He was a professor at Harvard and Oxford and was a journalist for the BBC. You don't get to where he's been without tremendous skills.
Nobody's arguing that he's not intelligent. Intelligence, however, doesn't equate to political success. I would say the majority of full-time professors I had at university were social disasters or walking on clouds. Thus far, he's shown very little political skill. Canada's biggest deficits ever should have been a free ride to a majority, or at least a minority, such as what happened in the US and GB. In Canada, however, Ignatieff was able to use the recession to bury himself.
The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.
Oh god. Please. Wake up. Was Trudeau fiscally responsible? No. He was the biggest spending PM we've ever had and the biggest actual contributor to our national debt. Was Martin? No, he spent and spent and spent as soon as the right united. So of our last 3 Liberal PMs, we had one that was fiscally responsible.
The Liberal Party stands for nothing. None of the parties stand for anything really, except for the ones who have no chance of being elected.
-
That is basically what a fighter jet is. BTW you can make mines levitate, you can also stealth them. You can also make weapons platforms levitate.
Why would you ever want a levitating weapons platform?
-
Yeah the only thing comparable/better is the F-22 Raptor but those are even more expensive. Even the US only has ~150 of them. The F-35 is supposed to have much simplified logistic support requirements, that was one of the major goals and criteria behind its development.
The F-22 was too good to be feasible. It was too expensive, too hard to maintain and way ahead of its time.
-
Another absolutely basic requirement I could see woudl be to require them all to pass a basic English of French test.
One of the few instances where I agree with you
-
What is meant is that the competion to replace the CF18 has not been tendered...no other planes has been asked to copmpete.
There aren't that many alternative options. The Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale etc are all marginal upgrades and wouldn't provide nearly the same effectiveness nor longevity.
The F-35 is the only plane out there that's going to provide a meaningful upgrade that we can use for the next 30+ years.
-
I'm getting exhausted here... but have to keep on, in a faint hope that my statements would get noticed, somehow. So, for the n-teenth time, what about the appopriation of lands or in plain words, LANDGRAB? How does it figure in the picture? Or does it at all? I mean does it even exist (in your reality)?
You're getting exhausted too eh? What about the land annexation and settlement? Really...what about it? It happened. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is saying it's a friendly gesture. The question is what reason do the Israelis have to leave? Please don't bring up international law. Like I said before it's impotent, grossly unfair and selectively enforced/respected.
I pointed out a significant difference between these facts though. Mine relate to acts, clearly aggressive acts of continuing and even accelerating build up of occupied lands. While you only come up with citations. I see that in your view an inflammatory word would equal, or rather justify inacceptable, atrocious acts.
I already addressed this. The militant Arab side has made their intentions very clear. They're not holding back out of respect for peace or anything noble like that. They're prevented and deterred by the looming threat of violent Israeli retaliation. Any violence against Israel is magnified and returned against the militants and where they live.
Is Israel to ignore the threats and inflammatory dialogue? Are they to pretend that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas did NOT indicated they'd never accept peace? I think it's safe to suggest their intentions aren't exactly peaceful.
But it would be possible to gradually reduce hostilities on both sides and along with it build up confidence and trust. But obviously, this is not the intent (at least, genuine one) here. Because one form of hostility and aggression, illegal landgrab is going on unabated regardless of other aspects of the conflict, the undeniable fact that we should stop treating as an odd curiousity, but rather as a persistent and conscious policy of the party that perpetrates it.
The Arab world is not giving Israel any reason to stop. As far as they're telling Israel, regardless of whether they continue the occupation or withdraw, they're still going to be attacked and threatened.
I said that the plan was put forward by the Arab League, and it's clearly stated in the reference. But of course who else could be at fault for your inability to read plain English?
The plan put forth by the Arab League was more an ultimatum than anything. It was a take it or leave it affair. It did not negotiate with Israel on the offer and some of the conditions of it were ludicrous. The proposal itself, however, was at least a step forward in the sense that it entertained the possibility of long lasting peace.
Let's look at a few of the problems with it:
1. It was proposed immediately following the Passover Massacre
2. It did not invite Israel to the discussion
3. It demanded settlement of the refugee crisis based on a UN Resolution passed in 1948 which was completely and totally unpalatable to Israel (and the Arab League knew that).
4. Important factions were not factored into account (neither Iran, Hezbollah nor Hamas endorsed it)
The refugee issue is a non-starter. Personally I'd be in favour of the plan providing we could account for rogue states/militant groups and they dropped the refugee issue. Withdraw to the 1967 pre-war borders in exchange for formal recognition and official peace agreements. Couldn't we settle on that?
If in your view, armless civilians "scare" uber armed occupying army into appropriating more and more of their land, it must be me and me alone that made you misread or misunderstood? or misrepresent? and so on the quoted link. Such is the nature of reality you live in and nothing could be done about it
( Don't be stupid. First off, they're not scared of unarmed civilians. Their scared of suicide bombers, rockets and guerrila attacks. They've a history of enduring these things. Second, they're not being scared into occupying territories. They're doing it because in their eyes they have no reason not to.
Nope, I'm not here to play word games. I know the difference between word and act. And I can see unjustifiable acts regardless of which side commits them. There's the essential difference of our positions in this dispute.
I'm glad you clarified that for me. Unfortunately for you the law would not respect the difference. In Canada, or anywhere with a legal system worth its name, a threat of violence is indeed a punishable offense. There's a reason for that. It's something to be taken seriously, especially from someone (the militant Arab world for example) that has a history of acting on those threats.
Only if you suggest that illegally occupied lands somehow belong to Israelis, and are up to them to "give up".
No I would merely suggest that they're in control of these lands and that nobody is going to 'force' them to give them up on the laughable grounds of 'international law'. So yes, I would suggest that those lands are therefore theirs to 'give up'.
Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace.
Myata that's such an outrageous and untrue claim I can't believe someone like you would even say that. There need not be ANY conditions for dialogue pertaining to peace and most of the world has most CERTAINLY NOT stated as such. That's patently false and I'd almost suggest you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Essentially this comes to a very basic question: could one take something that doesn't belong to them and claim it for their own? And we can already see where you're going with your answer.
Um...yes. Someone definetly can take something and claim it for their own. The validity of the claim can certainly be put to question, but the claim itself is pretty easy to make. If we're going to go down the path of useless and inept simplification, pretend Israel is a parent punishing children for misbehaving. Promise to behave and you can have your toys back. See? We can both dumb an argument down.
Please keep showing up your humoristic side when you've got nothing else to offer, it's very amusing.
I can't help it. Your claims of objectivity are something I'd expect from a clown...except clowns aren't even funny so...hmmm
But wouldn't it - the (full) reality be, by definition, hearing what each side is saying and seeing what they're doing?
Threatening is an action in and of itself. The fact that the ones doing the threatening are impotent to fulfil them does not in any way mean the threats are meaningless. You've decided they are, but you're among the loonie in that department, because most courts of law certainly wouldn't turn a blind eye.
Here's a final question I'll leave you with. What if Israel and the Islamic world came together and came up with an agreement where, if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders, and the Middle East agreed to recognize, coexist and declare permanent peace with them, we'd have a situation where both parties could reasonably benefit and be satisfied with?
If Israel refused an offer such as this Myata, I'd jump on your bandwagon in an instant. It hasn't been offered yet, however, and as long as both sides refuse to acknowledge that they both need to make concessions nobody is going to get anywhere.
-
the Gripen can be customized how ever a country likes more than the F-35!
We can use our own avionics's if we want F-35 not so!!.
No the Gripen cannot be upgraded 'however a country likes'. It can be customized to some extent, but it can't be customized to avoid radar detection like the F-35, nor can it be customized to perform 4 times better than Canada's existing fighter fleet.
The Gripen isn't even an option for us to 'upgrade' to. It would be like upgrading from a 2007 Toyota Corolla to a 2010 Honda Civic. It would be a pointless and expensive marginal upgrade that would leave us in the same situation as we're in now within the next 10-15 years.
-
OK but did you see the updated The info on the Future gripen
Actually, I've read a fair bit about the Gripen. It's a good plane, by 4th generation fighter standards.
In mock dogfights with Norwiegan F-16's, it was found to come out on top most of the time
. I don't know how pumped I am about spending billions for a marginal upgradeUpgrading from the F-18 to the Gripen would be dumber than not upgrading at all in my opinion.
The F-35 makes it look like garbage and is better suited to the role we're intending anyways.
-
Neither Hamas nor Israel appear to be interested in reaching any peace. Neither side seems to be run by folks with a modicum of humanitarian thoughts.
Which may be the sad reality.
$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
The Arrow...right...obsolete before completion. Let's not get into that again.