jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Japan and Germany were half a world away. Gaza and Israel are right next to each other.Relevance? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Japan and Germany didn't spend the entire time desperately trying to kill Americans either. Sure but the US wasnt building cities, moving parts of its population to live there permanently and removing all of their natural resources without compensating them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Relevance? Long term or permanent occupation is easier when you have close proximity to the occupied land. The US could not maintain occupation of Iraq for longer that it did. Even Afghanistan could not be permanently occupied. Logistics and distance of supply chains are difficult when the theater is half a world away. Quote
-TSS- Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 I just spoted news that Bolivia has declared Israel as a terrorist-state. Oh dear! I guess Israel can just and just scrape by without the support of the mighty Bolivia. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Sure but the US wasnt building cities, moving parts of its population to live there permanently and removing all of their natural resources without compensating them. Nor were the Israelis for the first couple of decades. If the Arabs had settled down, accepted them, however grudgingly, the world would be a different place today. Instead they continued to attack them, refused to sign peace treaties, refused to absorb their fellow Arab citizens, and sponsored terrorist groups against Israel. The Israelis withdrew their settlements from the Sinai after an agreement with Egypt. They withdrew their settlements from Gaza, as well. Nobody gives them the slightest credit for this, however, including the Arabs. It is Arab intransigence which has brought about this situation. As an example, the Israelis captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967. After the fighting ended, they offered to give it back in exchange for a peace treaty. The Syrians refused. The Israelis offered to exchange it for peace several times over the following years. Fifteen years after the war ended the Israelis simply shrugged and said "Well, I guess it's ours now." Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 I just spoted news that Bolivia has declared Israel as a terrorist-state. Oh dear! I guess Israel can just and just scrape by without the support of the mighty Bolivia. Morales is one of those loopy South American left wing nut jobs who embrace any dictator and autocratic who is anti-American. Gadaffi gave him a 'human rights' prize, for example. That Gadaffi blew up airliners apparently didn't bother Morales. He is also a great friend of Iran and said Bolivia and Iran, as great 'freedom seeking nations' have to fight against the evil Americans. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Morales is one of those loopy South American left wing nut jobs who embrace any dictator and autocratic who is anti-American. Gadaffi gave him a 'human rights' prize, for example. That Gadaffi blew up airliners apparently didn't bother Morales. He is also a great friend of Iran and said Bolivia and Iran, as great 'freedom seeking nations' have to fight against the evil Americans. Gaddafi was taken out because he was an economic threat to the US petrodollar. As was Hussein. This new BRICS conglomerate is also an economic threat to the US petrodollar. Actually a threat to the whole western economic system. Follow the money and you find the troublemakers. Quote
Argus Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Gaddafi was taken out because he was an economic threat to the US petrodollar. As was Hussein. This new BRICS conglomerate is also an economic threat to the US petrodollar. Actually a threat to the whole western economic system. Follow the money and you find the troublemakers. that would be, ahm, what exactly? Which supersecret group controls the world? The Illuminati? The Rotarians? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 that would be, ahm, what exactly? Which supersecret group controls the world? The Illuminati? The Rotarians? I don't care what you want to call them. Call them people with power, money, influence, ect. Those are the people calling the shots. Intervention is only required when resources and economic interests are being threatened. One wonders why Putin is the alleged bad ass over Ukraine and the rebels are the good guys. Putin takes Crimea mainly I believe for resource control. As the US did in Iraq (petrodollar threat) and Afghanistan (pipeline routes aka accessibility). This is where the real war is, and what the wars are really about. Things like terrorism do help the narrative in order to pull at heart strings to garner support. Some of those images are trotted out here on both sides of the argument begging you to look and shed a tear. This new conflict with Hamas and Gaza to me seems no different as the other cases. Gaza's coast hast found to have a few billion dollars worth of gas and oil deposits. All in about 50Kms of the shoreline. Guess who is going to benefit from that? Wars are about resources, the control of them and the currency they are traded in. Nothing more. Quote
jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Long term or permanent occupation is easier when you have close proximity to the occupied land. The US could not maintain occupation of Iraq for longer that it did. Even Afghanistan could not be permanently occupied. Logistics and distance of supply chains are difficult when the theater is half a world away.The U.S. has effectively occupied Japan, and Germany since 1945. And South Korea since 1951. Next? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Nor were the Israelis for the first couple of decades. If the Arabs had settled down, accepted them, however grudgingly, the world would be a different place today. Instead they continued to attack them, refused to sign peace treaties, refused to absorb their fellow Arab citizens, and sponsored terrorist groups against Israel. Yes well by that time of course it was becoming fashionable again for countries to just take what they wanted by hook, crook or force. Even the shiniest beacons on Earth were showing the way forward. Now look at the place. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 The U.S. also occupied The Philippines for over 50 years, interrupted only by another, much shorter occupation by Japan. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 This sort of occupation is the old school way of skinning cats. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Nor were the Israelis for the first couple of decades. If the Arabs had settled down, accepted them, however grudgingly, the world would be a different place today. Instead they continued to attack them, refused to sign peace treaties, refused to absorb their fellow Arab citizens, and sponsored terrorist groups against Israel. The Israelis withdrew their settlements from the Sinai after an agreement with Egypt. They withdrew their settlements from Gaza, as well. Nobody gives them the slightest credit for this, however, including the Arabs. It is Arab intransigence which has brought about this situation. As an example, the Israelis captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967. After the fighting ended, they offered to give it back in exchange for a peace treaty. The Syrians refused. The Israelis offered to exchange it for peace several times over the following years. Fifteen years after the war ended the Israelis simply shrugged and said "Well, I guess it's ours now." This is all a complete distortion of history. There WAS relative peace post armistice, and Israel was just as responsible for breaking that peace as the arabs. The current stretch of violence started in the early 60's when Israel built its National Water Carrier which diverted water away from Arab and Hashemite populations. The Arabs responded by attempting to divert water from the Hisbani river to the Yarmouk river. Israel started shelling Arab construction projects with mortars and tanks which lead to clashes along the border between Arabs and Israeli farmers. This is what lead to the six day war in 1967. Theres simply no historical facts that support your narrative. BOTH sides have been provoking each other since the very beginning. Your claim that the innocent Israelis were just hanging out playing with their dredles is a complete farce. Its quite simply not true. You have a picked a side here, and youre systematically ignoring all the wrongs commited by your team. Youre nothing more than a sports fan in this. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Rue Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) This is all a complete distortion of history. The current stretch of violence started in the early 60's when Israel built its National Water Carrier which diverted water away from Arab and Hashemite populations. The Arabs responded by attempting to divert water from the Hisbani river to the Yarmouk river. Israel started shelling Arab construction projects with mortars and tanks which lead to clashes along the border between Arabs and Israeli farmers. This is what lead to the six day war in 1967. Dre refers to the Johnston Plan which set up a unified water resource development of the Jordan Valley, sponsored by UNRWA 9which was then as it is now anti Israeli) and in fact accepted by Gamel Abnel Nasser of egyp as well as King Hussein in Jordan and not just Israel. Based on this plan created for and set up by UNWRA with these nations In 1964, Israel began drawing water from the Jordan River for its National Water Carrier,in accordance with the Johnston Plan. They broke no laws. Jordan and Egypt "claimed" Israel's accessing the water reduced the flow that reached Hashemite territory. In January 1964 the Arab League met in Cairo, again claimed these diversion of the Jordan waters"endangered Arab existence" and decided they should retailiate by depriving Israel of a 35% of the National Water Carrier capacity, an illegal act in violation of the Johnston Plan by a diverting the Jordan River headwaters (the Hasbani and the Banias tributaries ) to the Yarmouk River. Then the year after Jordan built a Headwater Diversion Plan, which had it been completed, would have diverted the waters of the Banias Stream before the water entered Israel and the Sea of Galilee, to flow instead into a dam at Mukhaiba for use by Jordan and Syria, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani River in Lebanon. Had this happened it would have reduced Israel's water capacity by 35%, and its overall water supply by about 11%. Now in Dre's version of history the fact that Jordan unilaterally broke the Johnson Plan seems ignored. It also seems ignored that the Johnson Plan was unfair, only arose AFTER Jordan realized Israel would also benefit from the water. When Jordan created and planned this project zero problems. Suddenly Israel was getting water, and poof, its suddenly a problem? The tactic of using water as a weapon against Israel had taken place long before this incident and was just a continuation of the on-going attacks by the Arab League nations whenever possible to discrupt life in Israel. Yes the IDF attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August of 1965, but this was only one in a series of continuing disputes along the borders with Israel between Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who remained in a declared state of war against Israel, did not recognize its right to exist and were stating they would rid Israel of its Jews. In Dre's revisionism he ignores the constant demands for Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state or face war in the 50's then 60's. Poof begone with such details. He seems to have selectively ignored the fact that Syria aligned with the Soviet bloc in the peak of the cold war along with Isaq and Egypt and the Soviets had made references they would come in and attack Israel on behalf of Syria. He seems to have forgotten Israel developed a nuclear bomb in those days in direct response to the Soviets threating to nuke it. He seems to have skipped over the fact that Syria and Egypt financed guerilla riaids on Israel in the early 1960s as part of what it called its "people's war of liberation", which today documents reveal were a used as well to focus attention away from internal dispuites within Syria's and Iraq's Ba'ath Parties. He also ignores the constant Fatah terror attacks by Arafat against Israel in the 60's from the Westt Bank and from Fedayeen in Gaza. Dre sees to have skiipped over the fact that in September of 1960, Nasser in a lovely and peaceful speech to the UN stated and I quote, "The only solution to Palestine is that matters should return to the condition prevailing before the error was committed — i.e., the annulment of Israel's existence." Dre also might forget that later In 1964 in one of his many death to Israel speeches he stated: "We swear to God that we shall not rest until we restore the Arab nation to Palestine and Palestine to the Arab nation. There is no room for imperialism and there is no room for Britain in our country, just as there is no room for Israel within the Arab nation." My favourite speech of Nasser's was in In 1965 when he said, "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." What Dre seems to ignore is during the 7 year period leading up to the 1967 war the water incident he refers to was one minor event in a never ending chain of events where the Arab League told the UN and called out to the world it would once again destroy Israel. Could Israel have avoided certain border clashes during this tense time period surrounded by countries in a declared state of war? How? When you are surrounded by countries in a declared state of war sending in non stop terrorists to attack, avoiding border clashes might be seen by the other side as Israel feared as weakness and appeasement. so you react with strength. Yes sometimes that might make things worse, who knows. Its easy to look back and second guess but if someone points a gun at you to kill you, yes you shoot him dead, then people like Dre can ask later could you have tackled him instead. Dre be fair just once. The 67 war was simply a continuation of a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The water incident was one of thousands of incidents and was not the cause of the war. Edited July 31, 2014 by Rue Quote
dre Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Dre be fair just once. The 67 war was simply a continuation of a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The water incident was one of thousands of incidents and was not the cause of the war. No it wasnt just one incident. It spawned a series of other clashes which lead to increased tensions and the war itself. The reality is the barely over a year before the 6 day war broke out Israel was bombing its arab neighbors. You can claim it was fair for Israel to divert that water using the NWC but the reality is that Israelis use about 5 times as much of that water per person than arabs in the region. Wiki has it about right... The Arab states decided to deprive Israel of a 35% of the National Water Carrier capacity, by a diversion of the Jordan River headwaters (both the Hasbani and the Banias) to the Yarmouk River, although the scheme was only marginally feasible, it was technically difficult and expensive. A major escalation took place in 1964. Israel declared it would regard such a project as an infringement of its sovereign rights.[6][7] At 1965, there were 3 notable border clashes, starting with the Syrians shooting Israeli farmers and army patrols, and continuing by Israeli tanks and artillery destroying the Arab heavy earth moving machines that were used for the diversion plan.[8] .[9] The Arab countries eventually abandoned their project. Control of water resources and Israeli military attacks regarding the diversion effort are considered among the major factors which led to the Six-Day War in June 1967. The fact is control of the water was probably THE biggest cause of the war, and when war broke out the first thing Israel did was declare all the water in the occupied territories their soveriegn property, and issued a number of military orders that shed quite a bit of light on what Israel hoped to achieve... Military Order of 7 June 1997 states that ″all the water resources that have been occupied again are the property of the state of Israel″.[21]Order No. 291 (1968). All pre-1967 land and water-related arrangements are declared invalid.[22]Order No. 158 (1967): "Order Amending the Water Supervision Law" ordained that all wells, springs and water projects are under the full direct command of the Israeli Military Commander.[21] Every installation or resource built without a permit will be confiscated.[21][22]Order No. 92 (1967) states that it ″gives the absolute authority of controlling all issues related to water to the Water Officer who is appointed by the Israeli courts.″ Military Orders 498 and 558 of 1974 and 1977 transferred all powers to the IDF in Gaza.[21][22] The combination of these two orders 158 and 92 gives the Israeli authorities complete control over the entire water supplies in the West Bank and Gaza. Only the Head, appointed by the Area Commander, has influence in any issue regarding “transportation, extraction, export, consumption, sale, distribution, inspection of its use, purification, allotment of shares, the establishment of water projects, measurement, prevention of contamination, carrying out of studies and measurements in anything that deals with water matters, drilling wells, hearing of objections and all proceedings dealing with any of the above laws, etc., fixing and collecting fees, taxes and any payments for any of the above and any other matter which has not been mentioned specifically above which deals in any way whatsoever with water subjects.” For example, Article 4(A) of Order 158 specifically states that “it shall not be permissible for any person to set up or to assemble or to possess or to operate a water installation unless he has obtained a license from the Area Commander.”[23] And although the exact number of granted licenses is disputed, the percentage is relatively small. Order No. 58 (1967) states that ″it is prohibited to construct any new water installation without a license and that the licensing officer has the right of rejecting any application for a license without having to give the justification for his rejection.″[21]Order No. 948 states that every citizen in the Gaza Strip is compelled to obtain the approval of the Israeli military commander before implementing any water-related project.[21] Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 This is all a complete distortion of history. There WAS relative peace post armistice, and Israel was just as responsible for breaking that peace as the arabs. The current stretch of violence started in the early 60's when Israel built its National Water Carrier which diverted water away from Arab and Hashemite populations. The Arabs responded by attempting to divert water from the Hisbani river to the Yarmouk river. Israel started shelling Arab construction projects with mortars and tanks which lead to clashes along the border between Arabs and Israeli farmers. This is what lead to the six day war in 1967.There was no water diversion near the Straits of Tiran. That blockade got that war up and running. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 There was no water diversion near the Straits of Tiran. That blockade got that war up and running. Ah...Google Newspapers. From May 27th, 1967...a few days before Operation Focus...pretty self explanatory. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19670527&id=nxAdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IJsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6894,4683354 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Rue Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Dre your cherry picking one event and saying it was the cause of the war is selectively absurd. All you are trying to do is selectively choose certain events and ignore the rest. Its a stale tactic. In reality history is not revised to ignore any events but the ones you want to consider. Israel had many skirmishes with Arab countries on its borders throughout the 60's. These countries were in a declared state of war with Israel and continually attacking Israel or allowing their borders to be used by terrorists to attack Israel. Ah but in your world we forget all that and just pretend Israel acted unilaterally and not in response to attacks. In your world anything the Arab countries did precipitating Israeli military responses magically goes poof....and not only that you can tell which event is the cause of a war among a series of events. You have psychic powers I suppose. Your bias is absurd.Its the same bias that has you coming on this board and suggesting Israel won't enter into a truce with Hamas when it has entered into 3 and all 3 have been unilaterally broken by Hamas. You are as absurd as Jacee who has now again come on this forum after Hamas has once again violated a truce with Israel to kill IDF soldiers and ignore that event and continue with this absurd position that Israel won't enter into a truce with Hamas. You 2 need a reality check. Better still you can tell me how Israel should enter into an agreement with an organization that breaks those agreements as fast as they are made. You can explain how Israel is supposed to enter into a truce with an organization who has stated it would use any lull in fighting from truces to rearm itself to finish the job of recapturing Israel. Go on Dre revise and take snap shots and be selective. It just renders you a shrill. History is a matter of a complex chain of events with cause and effect. Y Yes we know you think you can just cherry pick some events and ignore the others. Edited August 1, 2014 by Rue Quote
GostHacked Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 History is a matter of a chain of events. You don't just cherry pick some and ignore the others. But please go ahead and do that, You can call yourself a new historian. History is written by who won, not by who was right. I blame our education system for not properly teaching the right history. Quote
dre Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Go on Dre revise and take snap shots and be selective. It just renders you a shrill. Thats you... Youre the one that wants to ignore the fact Israel was already shelling its neighbors a year before the war broke out. Youre the one that tries to paint this phony narrative of Israel being nothing but the innocent victim of aggression, and to do that you have to ignore a whole lot of events. Edited August 1, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 This is all a complete distortion of history. There WAS relative peace post armistice, and Israel was just as responsible for breaking that peace as the arabs. The current stretch of violence started in the early 60's when Israel built its National Water Carrier which diverted water away from Arab and Hashemite populations. The Arabs responded by attempting to divert water from the Hisbani river to the Yarmouk river. Israel started shelling Arab construction projects with mortars and tanks which lead to clashes along the border between Arabs and Israeli farmers. This is what lead to the six day war in 1967. I read Rue's repudiation of the above, and your response to it. I could not help but notice you failed to disagree with the main points he made which relate to the above, which is that the above is a wildly inaccurate version of history. And then you claim _I_ have chosen sides... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-TSS- Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Watching tonight's main news broadcast on YLE, our equivalent of the BBC, they left absolutely no doubt which side their sympathies are on. Heart-breaking pictures of bleeding children at Gaza-hospitals, pictures of destroyed buildings and people walking amid the rubble looking for their belongings. After that, in the studio-section some "expert" was interviewed and was asked some question such as: Why doe s Israel have no regard for civilian death-toll. He answered something along the lines how Israel wants to show how strong it is and even the children who died could be future suicide-bombers. Oh, goddamit YLE! You are a tax-funded organisation. At least try to pretend to be impartial especially when reporting on news which have nothing whatsoever to do with Finland! Edited August 1, 2014 by -TSS- Quote
dre Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I read Rue's repudiation of the above, and your response to it. I could not help but notice you failed to disagree with the main points he made which relate to the above, which is that the above is a wildly inaccurate version of history. And then you claim _I_ have chosen sides... He didnt dispute a single thing I posted. Every single factual assertion I made was completely correct. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 He didnt dispute a single thing I posted. Every single factual assertion I made was completely correct. What he did was completely trash your statement regarding the water dispute. And you failed to dispute any of that information, which makes YOUR statement so much garbage. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.