dub

from your own wikipedia, where my point is confirmed: On the eve of the war the number of Arab troops likely to be committed to the war was about 23,000 and The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun and further down, again, more information that you seem to have missed: As the war progressed, the IDF managed to field more troops than the Arab forces. By July 1948, the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. furthermore, while the arabs were using the british planes left from the WW2, the israelis, ironically, were using nazi made planes they received from czech.

politiical lessons on online forums can only go so far. you should be doing your own research to learn about israel and the geneva convention. have a look at this information page and perhaps you will learn something: http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

okay. AIPAC is registered in america but it lobbies for israeli interests. are you fighting for the wording of how AIPAC is described? because at the end, the main point is that AIPAC lobbied for the war on iraq because it was good for israel. your denial would be more effective if you actually tried to correct what you perceive as a mistake. what is US aid to israel? do you know the proportion of US foreign aid that goes to the countries you've listed?

what exactly are you trying to argue? you're all over the place. my argument is that AIPAC lobbies the america government for the interest of israel; like pushing the U.S. to pay over $4billion a year to israel. AIPAC has also pushed congress to support the war on iraq and has been lobbying congress to support a war on iran. so far they've achieved 2 out of 3. do you disagree with this? because if you disagree, you're not being an honest person.

there were a few battles that were evenly matched, however, at the end, israel's weapons which was given to them by the west, dominated the arab military.

israel has violated the fourth geneva convention. not sure why you try to dispute this.

when you have close to 400 children dead in a couple of weeks, it's obvious that the israeli military is not differing between civilians and fighters. stop being a disgusting person and stop making excuses for civilian deaths.

haha @ "one rocket launched at innocents is a vile, disgusting terrorist act". that's kind of a funny thing to say for someone like you. everyone has seen how much you've cared about the casualties on the arab side done by the israeli military. do you notice your own double standards which is caused by your racist view of the situation?

if ahmadinejad was going to get a command from allah, he would have received it by now. iran's shahab missiles are capable of hitting israel. regardless, as i've already mentioned, iran would not attack israel since there are weapons pointing at it from the U.S. from many different directions. an intelligent person is not going to be scared like you because they understand the logic of the situation.

i was talking about the 1948 war. you still haven't told me exactly where i'm ignorant when it comes to the geneva convention.

this is from AIPAC: Consistently ranked as the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, AIPAC is an American membership organization that seeks to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. what do you think they lobby the government for when it comes to foreign policy? to claim that AIPAC has no position on iraq defies the imagination. the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment which declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization has been found to be drafted by AIPAC. in september 2002, AIPAC spokesperson rebecca needler told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “If the president asks Congress to support action in Iraq, AIPAC would lobby members to support him.” january 2003, according to the New York Sun, Howard Kohr, AIPAC executive director said, “AIPAC’s successes over the year also include guaranteeing Israel’s annual aid package and ‘quietly’ lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq.”

not sure how you came to that conclusion. hamas has only been elected for less than 10 years. the occupation, the increasing of the settlements, the annexation of land and the prevention of the palestinian has been happening for over 40 years. one of the biggest problem is the illegal settlements that continue to grow every year. israel needs to follow the UN resolutions instead of making excuses.

not sure how you got that from what i said. i think if iran had nuclear weapons, it's quite possible that israel would not be waving its guns at all directions like they have been doing. it would make them think twice before they start on bombing campaigns over their borders like they did in lebanon and they've done in gaza. israel is a bully right now and they have been getting away with whatever they've wanted. i think ideal would be that neither countries had nuclear weapons, however, we know that israel would not give up their weapons. so the next best thing is for iran to bring some balance into the region by acquiring nuclear weapons.

my answer to your question is that iran having a nuclear weapon would not be any worse than israel having it. iran would ever be a threat to canada or canadians.

i don't get where you're trying to go with this. AIPAC lobbies the government in favour of israel, does it not?

what do you mean? is it wrong to say the jewish lobby? because israel is a proud jewish state and i believe i'm using "the jewish" lobby in a correct context. so what do you think AIPAC does? what is their interest?

as a canadian, i wouldn't feel any safer with israel having the only nuclear power, aka the trump card, in the region. israel is a big reason for keeping the region unstable. whether iran has nuclear weapons or not it wouldn't make a difference. if they ever used them, they'd be attacked immediately by U.S. ships, submarines and planes that are surrounding them. as fanatical as the mullahs are made to look, i don't think they're going to risk losing power over this by shooting missiles around. they need a bad guy just as much as the israeli and the U.S. governments do in order to hold onto power. even kim jon who is a well-known lunatic has managed to keep its fingers off the trigger. he also doesn't feel as much pressure as iran at the moment.

either i didn't make my point clear enough or you didn't pay attention to what i said. i was comparing israel and arab countries' military strength when they fought decades ago. it is an insult, but it doesn't lead to stoning. perhaps you can use this piece of knowledge so that next you get the urge to utter misinformation, you can prevent yourself from doing it.

not sure why you're posting that article. many of the democrats also know where to stand when AIPAC is mentioned. they know how much power AIPAC has and they need to keep them happy. this is why many of the democrats voted for the war. they were lobbied strongly by AIPAC. what do you think AIPAC does? how much do you know about the relationship between AIPAC and bush's present and former advisers? because if you want, i would be happy to share the information with you.

i somewhat agree with that. i don't agree that iran will ever become friendly with bin laden or other sunni's, but it does want the respect nuclear power gives to nations. mostly because U.S. has nuclear weapons in their submarines pointing at iran in the persian gulf and they also know that israel is a bit of an emotional and trigger-happy country. iran is a bit like the way israel felt in the 50's, 60's and 70's with all the arab nations, who are pretty much all tamed now, surrounding it, threatening and complaining about the treatment of the palestinians. except that there was a big difference; back then, the arab nations were not powerful militarily. the smaller israel had more infantry than all the arab countries combined and israel also had top of the line weapons supplied by america. whereas now, U.S. has the most powerful military in the world and israel has the 5th most powerful military.

i usually look at the people around the president, mainly the foreign policy advisers, to determine which direction he is going to go towards. here is a list of them with a brief description. most are clintonites. http://www.newsweek.com/id/139894/page/1 it will also depend on how much power and influence the israeli lobby will have on this administration. it was that lobby with its close relationship with cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz which took U.S. into the iraq war.

the problem with some people who try to debate politics is that their immaturity and inability to look outside of the black and white world, where the slogan "you're either with us or against us" has become their main talking point, leads to them not being able to grasp the fact that you can be, for example; against israel's disproportional and illegal attacks on gaza and also be against hamas' illegal attacks at the same time. it's only immature people who turn these things into left wing/socialist vs right wing/fascist.

the matter in which the weapons were used is illegal. you seem to keep either missing that point or purposely avoiding to deal with it.

actually, the original poster asked; why can't iran have nuclear power and not "a nuke". then the discussion shifted to some people spreading more double standards. why can israel, who is militarily aggressive and who has not only threatened many countries but it has actually attacked other countries have nuclear weapons and other countries cannot? so why are you okay with "crazies" like israel having nukes? your double standard and unwillingness to discuss an obvious flaw in your politics is sickening.

a few keep calling them a nutbar but this so-called nutbar has never attacked anyone and any threat to any other nation, whether taken out of context or not, is no different than the nutbars with the stars and stripes and the country it supplies $4billion/year weapons to.. they both make regular threats of attacking and in many instances they actually do attack. i think you've got your unstable and untrustworthy, rogue state nutbars who attack other countries mixed up.