Nukes??

[James Deuce]

Lias - you've fallen into the trap that all Anti-Semites - oops - Anti Israelis want you to believe: That Palestine was a country. Palestine is the name given to an area of land by two occupying colonial empires; 1st the Romans and much later the British Empire. There has never been a country called Palestine, just an area called Palestine by occupying forces.

Many other countries have claimed that territory, rendering the ideal of a native Palestianian moot.

The area was granted for the creation of an Israeli state by the British Emprie in 1917 by the Balfour declaration. Winston Churchill reneged on honouring the declaration and created the dispute that continues to this day. There have always been Jews in "Palestine". Oddly enough they got on fine with the other nomadic tribes of various religions that also used "Palestine" as a home territory.

The Roman Empire destroyed the original Israel by creating the 2nd Jewish diaspora. Jews were superb administrators and small businessmen, so they were used as the economic and administrative backbone of the Roman Empire.

As for European guilt, the vast bulk of that guilt should belong to the so-called "Allies" us included, who were all fiercely anti-semite prior to WWII. You can't expunge that guilt with a flip comment. None of us belong to a society that has the moral ground ever point finger at anything an Israeli descendant of a holocaust survivor does and pronounce it as evil. They'd have systematically kill 6 million members of a religious faith by direct means, not the feeble indirect methods that that "journalist" Robert Fisk ascribes to the modern Israeli state.

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

This should give you an idea of how the monied elite view "jews" - people to make money from.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories...8warracket.htm

[Skyryder]

How about an attack on NZ? Wasn't NZ built from stolen land?



Historically the Jewish people originated from Palestine, not Europe.

I think it was Judea.

But both the Jews and the Arabs are on one stock.

Abraham. The dispute here is who was the wife, and who was the maidservent.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Many other countries have claimed that territory, rendering the ideal of a native Palestianian moot.

The area was granted for the creation of an Israeli state by the British Emprie in 1917 by the Balfour declaration. Winston Churchill reneged on honouring the declaration and created the dispute that continues to this day. There have always been Jews in "Palestine". Oddly enough they got on fine with the other nomadic tribes of various religions that also used "Palestine" as a home territory.

The Roman Empire destroyed the original Israel by creating the 2nd Jewish diaspora. Jews were superb administrators and small businessmen, so they were used as the economic and administrative backbone of the Roman Empire.

As for European guilt, the vast bulk of that guilt should belong to the so-called "Allies" us included, who were all fiercely anti-semite prior to WWII. You can't expunge that guilt with a flip comment. None of us belong to a society that has the moral ground ever point finger at anything an Israeli descendant of a holocaust survivor does and pronounce it as evil. They'd have systematically kill 6 million members of a religious faith by direct means, not the feeble indirect methods that that "journalist" Robert Fisk ascribes to the modern Israeli state.

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

This should give you an idea of how the monied elite view "jews" - people to make money from.

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories...8warracket.htm

During WW1 the Brits needed support of both the Zionists and the Arabs. It' slong and involved and when I find the time will try and find a link. But in effect they promised Palestine to both. When it comes to dirty deals the Brits would leave the Americans in the dust.

They did much the same thing to the House of Saud. Promises promises then reneged and the Americans backed the House over the Brits who if memory serves correctly changed thier support to the Rashid's. just one of the reasons why the Saudis are so pro America. They put them there. Got a link on this somewhere. To paraphase Churchil Never has so much misery been caused to so many by so few.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

During WW1 the Brits needed support of both the Zionists and the Arabs. It' slong and involved and when I find the time will try and find a link. But in effect they promised Palestine to both. When it comes to dirty deals the Brits would leave the Americans in the dust.

They did much the same thing to the House of Saud. Promises promises then reneged and the Americans backed the House over the Brits who if memory serves correctly changed thier support to the Rashid's. just one of the reasons why the Saudis are so pro America. They put them there. Got a link on this somewhere. To paraphase Churchil Never has so much misery been caused by so few.

Skyryder

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../abdulaziz.htm

Desperate to court him(King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Al Sa‘ud, ) once war with the Turks became a reality in 1914, the British Government engaged in a long-term strategic relationship that benefited both sides: British support aided the Saudis in their efforts to reunify the country, which meant driving the Turks from the region, and the rising Arabian polity that resulted meant that Britain could look upon a friendly government in a part of the world that the British regarded as essential to the defense of the centerpiece of their empire —India.

Relying on the Ottomans to maintain stability in the Middle East before the war, Britain had earlier disdained a pact with Abd al Aziz, but after Britain's declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire in October 1914, the British sought an alliance with the House of Saud. By a treaty signed in December 1914, the British recognized Saudi independence from the Ottoman Empire and provided Abd al Aziz with financial subsidies and small arms. As his part of the agreement, Abd al Aziz promised to keep 4,000 men in the field against the House of Rashid, which was associated with the Ottomans.

Looking for a foreign company to help develop the Kingdom’s oil reserves, King Abdulaziz chose not one of the many British firms that were already working in the region - in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain - but an American company, a choice made over the objections of Britain, then the dominant global power. The granting of the oil concession on July 7, 1933, to Standard Oil of California, which would evolve into the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), was followed in November of the same year by the establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
In February 1945, King Abdulaziz met separately with US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill along the Suez Canal. The main topic of conversation was the future of the Middle East in the post-war era. The meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Febuary 14, 1945 set the stage for close Saudi-U.S. relations. While Ibn Saud was angered by the United States’ acceptance of the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, he overruled Prince Faisal’s call for breaking diplomatic relations with America.


Skyryder

[Marmoot]

And yes marmoot I'm a fairly staunch nationalist, which is why the whole "stolen land" thing of Israel is a pet peeve of mine :-P Like the Iranian dude said, if europe was feeling so guilty about what Hitler did to the jews, why didnt they give the jews a corner of europe for a homeland, rather than stealing the land from the palestinians?

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'

[kickingzebra]

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'

Replace Palestinians with Maoris, Excellent idea... Ponders difficulties...

[Maha]

And IRAN
IRAN so far away
I just ran
couldn't get away.........Flock of Seagulls.......

[Winston001]

The Israeli situation was thrashed out on the Palestinian thread a few months ago. Good summation Jim2 and Skyrider.

Now - Iran. Unlike Pakistan, it isn't even remotely friendly to the USA. Having nuclear weapons would pose a clear and present danger to Israel, Saudi, Egypt, and a nascent democratic Iraq. Every country within range of a ship or aircraft.

So cousin George has leaked the pre-emptive strike idea. When the media report it - shock and denial. No no no - diplomacy is the answer.

The Brits, French et al make equally horrified noises. But behind the scenes they are telling the Iranians - he means it - he's nuts but he'll do it.

And so the intricate wheels of diplomacy will turn. With a bit of luck Iran will open their plants, abandon their plans, and the Americans will say "Fair enough, we were mistaken, don't do it again." Face saved all around.

Or the Iranians will give the rest of the world the fingers and find a few daisy-cutters arrive early one morning.

[riffer]

As for "jews"controlling" the US? Bollocks. Money has always controlled America.

Quite true.

How much of the demonisation of Iran is linked to the proposal by Iran to link the Oil Bourse (the international Oil Exchange) to Euros, thereby destroying the concept of the american Dollar as the one universal currency?

What will that do to the American Dollar?

see:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._exchange_.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/rev...ervice_ID=9752

[riffer]

Ha......I should name New Zealand and Australia as "stolen lands" as well then.
It's just a matter of replacing the 'jews' with 'british' and 'palestinians' with 'maoris'

Actually Marmoot, Oxford University's DNA studies have conclusively proved that the Maoris were actually made in Taiwan...

[Timber020]

Ask any military officer... I have a Mate doing initial officer training, attrition rate on the course is quite high, as people realise they may have to send people they know to die... No, doesn't take any balls.... no sarcasm here officer...

Can't speak for the French, but how do you define stronger war record? fired the guns himself?

I have respect for military officers, they are some of the first picked off by a dirtfoot if the opportunity arises. They are also largely accountable for their actions and are at least on the same battlefield as those that they order. Bush managed to defend the texas skys against the vietcong airforce and skipped base when medicals were due (which included drug testing). He hasnt put his red neck on the line for anything but to make more power or money for himself.

Chirac fought in the algerian conflict, although he was offered safe positions (ie desk jobs) he chose combat, lead from the front, fought bravely and was wounded in action. I do think he was drafted though.

[Marmoot]

Actually Marmoot, Oxford University's DNA studies have conclusively proved that the Maoris were actually made in Taiwan...

mate, almost everything is made in Taiwan, especially nowadays

[kickingzebra]

Timber and collegues...

ANYONE in politics knows that you don't so much make money or power, while in power, you make connections with people that have both.

There are a multitude of possibly less demanding, less critical jobs to be had outside of public office, and a fair number of them would be higher paid.

The nasty side effect of having military people in power, is the one thing they understand is military. There is a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh wait, Tiannemin square is just around the corner.

Is it just to say that any military personnal that have never seen "you kill me or I kill you combat" was never in fact in the military?
Mention that down at your nearest RSA and you'll be lynched!!

Bush is one of few politicians who by demonstrating fault, eg speaking etc, is more human than robobitch (helen) and yet, by doing what he is doing on the war front, is showing that Justice is still important. It is however interesting to note, that the left wing people, screaming the loudest on this (in the states) are all the ones that voted for clintons left wing administration to go to iraq in the very first place. Somehow it is worse, because the "war loving" right wing are taking a course of action and SEEING it Through.

Note, though personnal pro nouns are used in this post, no personnal offence is intended to timber 020 or anyone who may be a holder of the opposite viewpoint... Unless they piss me off... No one has yet.... Should I PM and tell you if you have so you know to take the insults personally?

[sAsLEX]

Ask any military officer... I have a Mate doing initial officer training, attrition rate on the course is quite high, as people realise they may have to send people they know to die... No, doesn't take any balls.... no sarcasm here officer...

Depends what force your on about mate, the Army for instance gets large numbers at the start of their Training with the aim of culling the weak and only keeping the few they deem as worthy.
Navy on the other hand has smaller courses and tends to only loose one or two through training, but then what would I know.....

EDIT: and if it is one facility out in the middle of nowhere why not just use a few MOABs on the thing inserted by a b1 or something,could prob do it on the down low and try to deny it.....

[kickingzebra]

Army it is, the point is, it is a serious responsibility, not one anybody can just pick up up, and say, hey, I think I'll send Ted, Billy and Joe on a suicide mission today....

Whether the individual force do, picking officer candidates before or after is up to them. I would rather say let them loose for while, after initially profiling them, and see how they react when the pressure is on.

I suppose in the navy, survivability is arguably more at stake, so they want to make the right decision first time. Still, how do you see how someone is going to react in a battle/emergency situation?