|
|
#51
11-17-2005, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Israel
You said, Cyrus, that the US never did anything that didn't follow and help Israel. I simply pointed out two instances where the US pressured Israel to do what it wanted. Now, this is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done. The US did put pressure on Israel not to let the Egyptian army starve. Are you denying that the Egyptain army wouldn't have starved if the US didnt pressure Israel to give them food and water? In fact, the US put tremendous pressure on Israel to not destroy the trapped army, even threatening to support a UN resolution calling for US to pull back. I am not arguing that Israel would have been better for destroying the third army or not. I am simply using this as an exampple of US pressure on Israel. Can you admit that you were wrong when you stated otherwise?
[ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today. [/ QUOTE ] Once again you are completely missing my point. I do not deny that Israel was responsible for the concessions and not the US. But the US pressured Israel to opt for this plan. They did not just tell Israel that whatever they wanted to do and they would support them. This is what you claimed, and this is the point I am refuting. I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords, so just look at that. I attempted through the internet to find evidence to back my claim that Arab governments openly called for the destruction of the US but couldnt find it. Until I come across evidence, I will state that I was wrong for saying that. But I still believe that many Arab governments do wish for the destruction of the US and its values. Also, will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel? [ QUOTE ] I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands. [/ QUOTE ] Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century and not for Palestinian and other Arab countries to get into the 21st century? I'll do you one better. How about Arab countries and the Palestinian government get into the 18th century? Even the 17th century would be better than now. 
|
|
#52
11-17-2005, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Israel
[ QUOTE ]
This is not about whether or not Israel would have done differently anyway. This is about whether or not the US put pressure on Israel at all, which you claim they never have done. [/ QUOTE ]You did not read carefully the text. I did not claim that America never tried to put some pressure on Israel (the latest example of such "pressure" was the Bush Roadmap, which is now a dead duck). Just so that you understand very clearly: The United States HAS tried to apply some (very mild, very discreet) pressure on Israel. This has happened, by the way, in peripheral, secondary matters. The only times that I know where serious pressure has been applied was in 1956, but this was pressure applied to Britain and France, as I explained, and Israel found itself caught in the fray -- and the Yom Kippur War, whereby the United States pressured Israel to withdraw from the west bank of the Suez canal. However, this was something that Israel would have done in any case! This is the point : Israel seems to oblige the U.S. but it does so ONLY when this is convenient for Israel! If you think that this amounts to succumbing to pressure, be my guest. You know, it is a little tiresome when I am arguing on the basis of what Menachem Begin, David Ben-Gurion or Moshe Dayan have said and done (as a matter of historical records) and I am confronted by people who effectively dispute what the Israeli leadership itself explicitly was supporting! Please understand this : Israel's numero uno concern, militarily and politically, has been Egypt, not Jordan, not Libya, not Iraq, not Lebanon, not Saudi Arabia. Alright? This is why they withdrew from the Suez west bank. In order to open the way for an eventual peace agreement. [ QUOTE ] I already debated a bit about the USS Liberty with twowords. [/ QUOTE ] Debate it as much as you like and with whomever you like : I gave you the testimony of the survivors of the attack against the ship! Are you going to claim you know what happened better than the American shipmen who were there ? The U.S.S. Liberty website [ QUOTE ] I still believe that many Arab governments wish for the destruction of the US. [/ QUOTE ] I knew about wishful thinking. This must be something else. [ QUOTE ] Will you condemn the remarks made by the Iranian president calling for the annihilation of Israel? [/ QUOTE ]You think it is necessary? Why can't you automatically assume that I disagree with and condemn what the Iranian president stated? But I already obliged you here. [ QUOTE ] Get Israel into the 21st century? Are you joking? You are seriously calling for one of the most advanced countries in the world to get into the 21st century? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. A country that is based on principles such as Israel's, and a country with pretensions to "western values" and "democratic principles" at that, is an anachronism, a throw-back to the nationalism of the 19th century. The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul. And it's not just me saying this...
|
|
#53
11-17-2005, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased. [/ QUOTE ] Then reply to my argument in this thread: Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct [/ QUOTE ] To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
|
|
#54
11-18-2005, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Israel
[/ QUOTE ] The world has moved. The Jews have been left behind. Moreover, through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul. And it's not just me saying this... [/ QUOTE ] You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line.
|
|
#55
11-18-2005, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Israel
[ QUOTE ]
You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line. [/ QUOTE ] Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any) If I critisize the American government or even America itself, am I anti-American? (the latter part of that rhetorical question is some nice food for thought)
|
|
#56
11-18-2005, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Israel
[ QUOTE ]
Oh please. He's just using Jews and Israelis as a synonom. It's not his fault that Israel insists on being a Jewish state (as opposed to mult-cultural or strictly secular). Nor is he saying that all Jews are guilty of Israels crimes. (if they're guilty of any) [/ QUOTE ] He is equating Jews with the Israelis, but is not suggesting Jews are guilty of Israeli crimes? Which is it? I am confused. Secondly, Israel is a secular state with a secular government. It is not a theocratic state, nor is it anti-democratic like Cyrus implied.
|
|
#57
11-18-2005, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Honored
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Through the actions of Israel in the last fifty years, the moral high ground enjoyed by the Jewish tribe has been lost. Israel wins the battle for hills, rivers and valleys and loses the battle for its soul. And it's not just me saying this... [/ QUOTE ] You are right. Many other anti-semites are touting the same line. [/ QUOTE ] So, you think it is anti-semitic to support the position that Israel may have won the military battles but is losing its soul ? Well, if that's the case, I am joining an illustrious group of Jewish anti-semites!..
|
|
#58
11-18-2005, 04:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional or heavily biased. [/ QUOTE ] Then reply to my argument in this thread: Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct [/ QUOTE ] To be honest, I found that argument something of a non sequitur. Kinda like, "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large." [/ QUOTE ] Or it could be that you simply are unable to grasp where the war in Iraq fits in the greater strategic scheme of things. Forest and trees type of stuff.
|
|
#59
11-18-2005, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Even the Brit opinion writers of the London Times realize that the title of this thread is true.
You don't have to be an amnesiac to be a democrat, buddy, but it helps
|
|
#60
11-18-2005, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Another good analysis:
The Big Lie Democrats Excerpt: "Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not? The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
