• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The Palestinian authority takes its case to the UN general assmebly

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
In something that somewhat flew under the radar yesterday when it happened, the Palestinian authority took its case to the UN general assembly. In a stronger pleas for a formal upgrade to non-member status.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=286186

As the general assembly has yet to take a formal vote on that resolution. And neither the US or Israel took to the floor to make their views known. But there is a growing danger that nations like Egypt and other entities will formally renounce the camp David accords because of an Israeli breech of contract.

As all this nonsence about various green lines and Palestinian zones of control that Israel relies on to sustain its now 45 year old military occupation of disputed territories, were merely temporary pre-agreed measures that the various negotiating parties, including Arifat, agreed to prior to as the opening ante to negotiations. And were set to expire after all parties inked a deal. But since Arifat refused to sign over the Palstinian right to return, no deal was inked by all parties, hence Israel still using those temporary agreements puts Israel in breech of contract. Leaving the new Government of Egypy free to renegotiate the terms of the treaty as Israel, in just a few short years has lost all diplomatic good will withits mid-east neighbors gained over a period of 64 years. And the USA is also a big loser as well, as the pressure to create a Palestinian state is likely to continue to build.

As I also maintain the Iranian nuclear issue is more a side show, designed to deflect attention away from Palestinian Statehood issues.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
In case you haven't noticed Obama did a pretty good job of pissing on Immadinnerjacket and his ilk.
As I also maintain the Iranian nuclear issue is more a side show, designed to deflect attention away from Palestinian Statehood issues.
Oh yeah, that's why the western world is pissed off at Iran. It's an attempt to keep the palestinians down. Let me guess, you don't think the Holocaust happened either.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
BTW, here's a tidbit about Iran for you.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
While the op is rather biased himself, hayabusa rider seems like he can't separate the American state from the American people or that he makes no effort to do so. That said, maybe outside factors have made it so Iran can't prove that they aren't dangerous. Also, it is not looking at the big picture... China and Russia are potentially a lot stronger than the u.s. govt is even if Iran isnt. However, the sanctions may have made the islamic republic of Iran even stronger and we just havent been shown. Maybe they are getting a nuclear weapon, but it's not for the us gov to expand, it's an exude. Also, they they really were devaluing their currency (which would make sense given the sanctions put on them) then that makes the Republic of iran even stronger. It isn't good for their people either, but if the state feels threatened, then it will have to sacrifice some of its subjects.

I also think the sanctions were tried knowing that they would make the republic of Iran stronger and as way to war... they were just imposed so the us gov could say it was threatened and enough people would fall for it.

I mean, I don't care if it is beneficial to go to war against Iran, the govt can abolish itself and people can volunteer if they care enough.

All of that said, hayabusa rider is a threat to America as well as the lives liberty and property of most people. He is good for increasing the power of all states and the military industrial complex, but he's bad for liberty and the majority known as America and of the world... sadly, almost half of the people are like him.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
All of that said, hayabusa rider is a threat to America as well as the lives liberty and property of most people. He is good for increasing the power of all states and the military industrial complex, but he's bad for liberty and the majority known as America and of the world... sadly, almost half of the people are like him.
__________________
It's been a long time since I've had such high praise. :p
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
In something that somewhat flew under the radar yesterday when it happened, the Palestinian authority took its case to the UN general assembly. In a stronger pleas for a formal upgrade to non-member status.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=286186

As the general assembly has yet to take a formal vote on that resolution. And neither the US or Israel took to the floor to make their views known. But there is a growing danger that nations like Egypt and other entities will formally renounce the camp David accords because of an Israeli breech of contract.

As all this nonsence about various green lines and Palestinian zones of control that Israel relies on to sustain its now 45 year old military occupation of disputed territories, were merely temporary pre-agreed measures that the various negotiating parties, including Arifat, agreed to prior to as the opening ante to negotiations. And were set to expire after all parties inked a deal. But since Arifat refused to sign over the Palstinian right to return, no deal was inked by all parties, hence Israel still using those temporary agreements puts Israel in breech of contract. Leaving the new Government of Egypy free to renegotiate the terms of the treaty as Israel, in just a few short years has lost all diplomatic good will withits mid-east neighbors gained over a period of 64 years. And the USA is also a big loser as well, as the pressure to create a Palestinian state is likely to continue to build.

As I also maintain the Iranian nuclear issue is more a side show, designed to deflect attention away from Palestinian Statehood issues.
If a contract is invalid, how can there be a breach?

Also, such tearing of agreements because they were not signed can remove restrictions that Israel also agreed to.

There is no have your cake and eat it also.

Free the Arabs and Palestinians, you also free the Israelis.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,269
2,971
126
While the op is rather biased himself, hayabusa rider seems like he can't separate the American state from the American people or that he makes no effort to do so. That said, maybe outside factors have made it so Iran can't prove that they aren't dangerous. --outside factors....how so? Iran has made it so they cannot prove they aren`t dangerous!! At every turn they have refused IAEA inspectors....don`t blame this crap on outside factors...

Also, it is not looking at the big picture... China and Russia are potentially a lot stronger than the u.s. govt is even if Iran isnt. However, the sanctions may have made the islamic republic of Iran even stronger and we just havent been shown. Maybe they are getting a nuclear weapon, but it's not for the us gov to expand, it's an exude. Also, they they really were devaluing their currency (which would make sense given the sanctions put on them) then that makes the Republic of iran even stronger. It isn't good for their people either, but if the state feels threatened, then it will have to sacrifice some of its subjects. -- quit your blabbering diatribe...please....

I also think the sanctions were tried knowing that they would make the republic of Iran stronger and as way to war... they were just imposed so the us gov could say it was threatened and enough people would fall for it. -- quit thinking..we all know you can`t think...

I mean, I don't care if it is beneficial to go to war against Iran, the govt can abolish itself and people can volunteer if they care enough. -- wow are you really that screwed up to believe your crap??

All of that said, hayabusa rider is a threat to America as well as the lives liberty and property of most people. He is good for increasing the power of all states and the military industrial complex, but he's bad for liberty and the majority known as America and of the world... sadly, almost half of the people are like him.
Finally I am sure that if a vote was taken today on these forums -- Who do you want to be like -- Hayabusa Rider or Anarchist420......it would Hayabusa Rider by a land slide....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Finally I am sure that if a vote was taken today on these forums -- Who do you want to be like -- Hayabusa Rider or Anarchist420......it would Hayabusa Rider by a land slide....
I don't think I want to hold office, but being so... formidable... is kind of fun :cool:
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
We dont have to go to war with Iran we can just supply the students and others who want to make a revolution with Arms. Otherwise the military will just round up anyone against the government and torture them and put them to death or whatever is passing for justice in that part of the country.

The USA has got sanctions in place against them selling oil or fuel abroad. So other than killing our own people, there is no monetary reason why we could not attack them assuming anyone really wanted to. We have them in a box right now like we did to Iraq. You know that did not go well. I think Americans are just tired of war. When did the conservative party become the kill first and ask questions later party?
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As the EK comment boil down, "Free the Arabs and Palestinians, you also free the Israelis."

Which then boils down to asking what freeing the Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis means.

Or in EK pro-Israeli fan boy status means, freeing Israel to do what???????????? Like in launching new Israeli wars of conquest just because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey no longer love Israel as much as they did two or three years ago and will no longer abide by contracts Israel breeched 34 years ago. Does that give Israel to attack all its neighbors yet again if ALL of Israel neighbors do nothing agressive while Israel sits and stews on its harvest of contempt.

But still there are other real world problems if Israel does not honor its part of the Oslo accords and the camp David agreements. To start out with, Jordan would be free to quit supply Israel Jordan river water because no part of Israel's 1948 borders on the West Bank of the Jordan river. The same can be said of the Golan heighths and the Lebanese Livini river. And as its is, after 2006, Israel's neighbors will no longer partisipate in helping Israel maintain a economic embargo of the Palestinian economy. As well as the fact, no longer would Israel have any ability to collect, with hold, or tax the Palestinian economy in any way. All of which is contingent on the validity or lack of the same regarding the camp David Accords.

Then we can ask regarding Iran, how far will the world permit Israeli military hegemony to go? 800 KM to the nearest Iranian border is really pushing it, as we can also ask, why is Iran a threat to Israel? Sure Iran has a low grade proxy war against Israel, while Israel has a higher grade proxy war against Iran. When its amost certain our great ally in Saudi Arabia supports the bulk of funding of Israeli terrorism that Israel has been richly earning since 1953.

As I can also ask EK, do you really think Israel can stop the formation of a Palestinian state without some totally unjustified pre-emptive violence?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
4
0
As the EK comment boil down, "Free the Arabs and Palestinians, you also free the Israelis."

Which then boils down to asking what freeing the Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis means.

Or in EK pro-Israeli fan boy status means, freeing Israel to do what???????????? Like in launching new Israeli wars of conquest just because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey no longer love Israel as much as they did two or three years ago and will no longer abide by contracts Israel breeched 34 years ago. Does that give Israel to attack all its neighbors yet again if ALL of Israel neighbors do nothing agressive while Israel sits and stews on its harvest of contempt.

But still there are other real world problems if Israel does not honor its part of the Oslo accords and the camp David agreements. To start out with, Jordan would be free to quit supply Israel Jordan river water because no part of Israel's 1948 borders on the West Bank of the Jordan river. The same can be said of the Golan heighths and the Lebanese Livini river. And as its is, after 2006, Israel's neighbors will no longer partisipate in helping Israel maintain a economic embargo of the Palestinian economy. As well as the fact, no longer would Israel have any ability to collect, with hold, or tax the Palestinian economy in any way. All of which is contingent on the validity or lack of the same regarding the camp David Accords.

Then we can ask regarding Iran, how far will the world permit Israeli military hegemony to go? 800 KM to the nearest Iranian border is really pushing it, as we can also ask, why is Iran a threat to Israel? Sure Iran has a low grade proxy war against Israel, while Israel has a higher grade proxy war against Iran. When its amost certain our great ally in Saudi Arabia supports the bulk of funding of Israeli terrorism that Israel has been richly earning since 1953.

As I can also ask EK, do you really think Israel can stop the formation of a Palestinian state without some totally unjustified pre-emptive violence?
Again we see LL lack of history or at lest rose colored glass views again.

Israeli never launched a war of conquest. the Arabs did; sided witht he Palestinians.

And everytime; Israel took at little more buffer zone as a penalty.
but for those that believe in do-overs; Israel should not have the land and the Arabs need to be rewarded for their attempts to destroy Israel.

Why should Israel have to honor agreements if the Arabs will not?

At present, the Arabs have to live with what land Israel has; because it was lost due to military activity. Israel is nto going to worry about borken rules.

israel has control of the West Bank; Jordan has to deal with that; not the '48 borders that the Arab armies violated.

given that the Palestinians are under Israeli control until they come to an agreement for statehood; both for Egypt and Jordan to help the Palestinians, means that the help goes through Israel.

the Arabs had their chances for a Palestinian state; they rejected it.
The Palestinians had their chances when under Arab control and Israel control - they ignored/killed it.

Egypt does not want to tangle with Israel; nor does any of their other neighbors.
the Palestinains are not worth it to those nations.

A Palestinian state can be created if the Palestinains choose to if:
They abide by Oslo and negotiate with Israel with sincerity
or
They chose to act on their own and are fully accepted into the UN.

They also need to realize that they have to accept the consequences of statehood if they can not control their own borders.

Given that SIrael takes attacks fromPalestinian territory every day; why can not any one of them be used as the straw the breaks the camels back. even better would be if the Palestinians back up Iran. Then there is no smoke screen. The Palestinians are the one walking a very thin string that can easily break. It has happened before.

So Mr. ME expert; who is going to force Israel to continue with agreements that the other side choose to break?

You were saying that Sept 2011 the group of five would grant Palestinian statehood; that did not happen because the Palestinians would not comply witht he conditions that were laid out.

Why do you think that anything different will happen?
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Or in EK pro-Israeli fan boy status means, freeing Israel to do what???????????? Like in launching new Israeli wars of conquest just because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey no longer love Israel as much as they did two or three years ago and will no longer abide by contracts Israel breeched 34 years ago. Does that give Israel to attack all its neighbors yet again if ALL of Israel neighbors do nothing agressive while Israel sits and stews on its harvest of contempt.
I want to see the list of wars of conquest that Israel waged in the ME. Maybe they did it right after the IAEA said Saddam had nukes?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well Mr Palestinian expert EK, as you engage in just short term thinking, I am more patient as I see the Israeli position totally unravelling at an ever accelerating rate.

As we may well see more concrete results in a year or two. As it is likely the the USA will pay ever increasing diplomatic and economic prices to continue supporting only Israel in the mid-east.

The end proof in the pudding is in results. As even you EK, should realize that Israel is in far worse shape than it was, one year, two years, three years, and need I continue to say, 10 or 20 years ago.

Let us see, EK, which set of our glasses see future history more clearly?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,108
13,043
136
Israeli never launched a war of conquest. the Arabs did; sided witht he Palestinians.
That's profoundly untrue. In 1947 & 1948, Palestinians fled the violence of Zionist militias & were also actively expelled. The Arab countries sided with the Pals, only to be defeated. ~750,000 Pals were never allowed to return home.

In the 1967 conflict, Israel staged a surprise attack, what they described as pre-emptive. It seems unlikely that Egypt intended to attack, given that ~half their army was in Yemen, but Israel won the PR battle as well as the war.

If they never engaged in conquest, why do they keep taking Palestinian territory? Some kind of accident?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
In the 1967 conflict, Israel staged a surprise attack, what they described as pre-emptive. It seems unlikely that Egypt intended to attack, given that ~half their army was in Yemen, but Israel won the PR battle as well as the war.
That's interesting.
On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[64]
At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000&#8211;20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.[65][66][67] Nasser's ambivalence about his goals and objectives was reflected in his orders to the military. The general staff changed the operational plan four times in May 1967, each change requiring the redeployment of troops, with the inevitable toll on both men and vehicles.[68]
That's a well written and accurate Wiki piece. It was a surprise to be sure, but hardly one side attacking another who was sitting around peacefully.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,108
13,043
136
That's interesting.


That's a well written and accurate Wiki piece. It was a surprise to be sure, but hardly one side attacking another who was sitting around peacefully.
Other reliable sources pace the number of Egyptian troops in Yemen at 50-70K-

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf

Not half, my mistake, but a large enough % to show that Nasser wasn't serious. The fact remains that Israel was the first to attack.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Other reliable sources pace the number of Egyptian troops in Yemen at 50-70K-

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf

Not half, my mistake, but a large enough % to show that Nasser wasn't serious. The fact remains that Israel was the first to attack.
If you read the rest of the article I quoted you will find (with references) that Nasser pulled a Bush and ignored his intelligence services on the situation. If you do some more research the number I quoted seems to be the majority view. Given the upper end he had 20% in Yemen. That leaves quite a few left sitting in the Sinai.

He had no intention to listen to anyone about what was happening. Things escalated and yes Israel fired the first shot.

The facts are that the region was seething with tension and armies were being massed for fighting on both sides. Both sides wound up caught in a game of posturing and we see what the consequences were. That's a far cry from a picture where innocent Egypt was suddenly jumped with no cause for such an expectation. Likewise if the Israelis were jumped on first they would have no reason to have anyone believe that they were just standing around minding their own business. Bad thing happened and were done on both sides which should not have. That does not validate the contention by LL what happened was a war of conquest on the part of Israel. It was a powderkeg that went off.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY