Anti-Semite Pres.

[Saltydog235]

The conventional wisdom is that whoever holds the Golan controls all of it. I keep hearing that Isreal would be virtually undefensable if those borders were returned to. And why in the hell would they agree to give back land they won in a war they didn't start?

I sincerely hope that Benjamin Notgonnagivethatshitbacktoabunchofcamelfuckingfag gotassedlyingcheatingragheadswhenwewonitbecausethe yarecowardwhocannotfightworthashit, tell Illbombya to take his authoratative king of the world attitude and shove it up his skinney socialist ass.

[BigBrother]

I sincerely hope that Benjamin Notgonnagivethatshitbacktoabunchofcamelfuckingfag gotassedlyingcheatingragheadswhenwewonitbecausethe yarecowardwhocannotfightworthashit, tell Illbombya to take his authoratative king of the world attitude and shove it up his skinney socialist ass.

He did, but in a very diplomatic way.

[badfaulkner]

How important is high ground in this day and age? The Golan heights for example, Israel took it to stop shelling coming from it. Wouldn't an airstrike stop the shelling?

It's crucial even in this day and age. Air superiority doesn't gain or hold ground from land attacks.

If air superiority could win a war in the 21st century, the Taliban wouldn't still exist and be poised to swoop right back in.

The reason we don't hold ground in Afghanistan is because we never fought that war like Israel fights Arabs. We fought it like Vietnam. Very unfortunate.

Israel giving up the Golan Heights would be about like the Union giving back Little Round Top to the Confederates after Day 2 at Gettysburg. You only do such a thing if you want annihilated.

Sorry for the yankee analogy. You guys know whose side I favor in that war. If you don't, I'll post my battle flag tattoo for you some day.

[SC quacker]

[QUOTE=badfaulkner;830677]

What put me on my reading/search was a very slanted CNN article on BHO's speech, referring to his demand of a return to pre-1967 borders being a US policy seldom referred to but in existence.

[QUOTE]

Isn't there still a UN order to that effect? Similar to the one we used to attack Iraq when they where in Kuwait and attack again over weapons of mass destruction.

[badfaulkner]

Isn't there still a UN order to that effect? Similar to the one we used to attack Iraq when they where in Kuwait and attack again over weapons of mass destruction.

Yes there is such a resolution, SCQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_242



But keep in mind that the UN also made a resolution that figuratively stated "Zionism is Racism." I'm not making that up but merely showing that there is a history of hostility in the UN. (See: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_3379

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...solution_46/86

http://www.adl.org/durban/adl_quotes.asp

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1027

[badfaulkner]

Also, UN resolution 242 was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon.

I wonder how he'd feel about letting Germany have it's pre-1944 borders back in Europe (Danzig corridor in particular). I know, I know...Germany took this by invasion. Okay, then. How about letting them have parts of East Prussia and Danzig back, their pre-1917 borders? There are chunks of Poland that what were part of Germany prior to the armistice of 1917 that sowed the seeds for Hitler's rise to power.

You see my point. The British are hypocritical. We could argue Northern Ireland for hundreds of posts while we're at it.

[SC quacker]

The great news is that challenging AIPAC generally leads to short political careers.

[badfaulkner]

The great news is that challenging AIPAC generally leads to short political careers.

[Saltydog235]

The great news is that challenging AIPAC generally leads to short political careers.

Hope you're right.

[Geetch]

It's crucial even in this day and age. Air superiority doesn't gain or hold ground from land attacks.

If air superiority could win a war in the 21st century, the Taliban wouldn't still exist and be poised to swoop right back in.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was Syria that was doing the shelling, not a hit and run militia, but a national army. My lack of tactical knowledge is showing.

I'm not saying I think Israel should give it back, just questioning the idea that it can't be defended.

[BigBrother]

I'm not saying I think Israel should give it back, just questioning the idea that it can't be defended.

Israel paid for it in blood. I think it has a non-return policy.

[badfaulkner]

I may be wrong, but I thought it was Syria that was doing the shelling, not a hit and run militia, but a national army. My lack of tactical knowledge is showing.

I'm not saying I think Israel should give it back, just questioning the idea that it can't be defended.

Geetch, it was indeed a war with Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) and not rock throwing Palestinian indigents, but this makes it even more imperative that they not give the land back. Syria shelled Israel from the Golan Heights even before they officially attacked (while Israel was kicking the Egyptians' asses to the South).

And this brings up an interesting point...

...it's never really been about the Palestinians vs. the Jews. The war-minded arab neighbors stir the shit. If left alone, they'd be one nation and prospering in peaceful co-existence. This whole "separate from the Jews so we can jihad" was NOT an Israeli or Palestinian plan but the arab neighbors' plan.

Another point...the whole fucking world acts like fighting Muslims is like fighting anybody else, where treaties can be honored, peace restored, happily ever after (see: Japan; Germany). Wrong. (See: Treaty of Hudaibiya; once referenced by Arafat as an Islamic way of dealing with foes)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/708295/posts
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Mu...-hudaibiya.htm

As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:

"If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari 78:618)

Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:

"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari 52:269)

[Geetch]

I don't think Palestinians are well liked in the region. An Egyptian professor I had in school said they are the gypsies of the Middle East. No one wants them in their country. I think Jordan kicked them out and into Palestine back in the day.

[badfaulkner]

I don't think Palestinians are well liked in the region. An Egyptian professor I had in school said they are the gypsies of the Middle East. No one wants them in their country. I think Jordan kicked them out and into Palestine back in the day.

I think you're right. In fact, one writer claims the first Jewish settlers (1917 and onward) were soon accepted as business partners for trading, etc and they coexisted peacefully. Why? Because the arabs found the Jews far kinder than the Turks [fellow muslims, neighboring arabs] of the Ottoman Empire. They were nothing but piss boys to the turks, as were arabs in present day EVERYWHERE in the middle east.

It's sad, really. The real oppressors of the arabs in Palestine, the real troublemakers, are their fellow arabs. History repeats itself.

[badfaulkner]

Read the paper today. PBHO says this longstanding US policy dates back to Bill Clinton (asking for 1967 borders be reinstated). UN resolution 242 is longstanding but a US president calling for it to be followed isn't. I guess he'll be calling the Bush Doctrine longstanding next (those who aid terrorists will be treated as terrorists).