Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Agrees...

Dr Dreidel: Smoking GNU: mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]

So it's their own bloody fault.

And again in '67. '73, well... attack me once, shame on me. Attack me twice, shame on you. Attack me thrice? You won't get the chance, sucka!!!

// nah, but it was a war, and people died
// and my uncle got his paratrooper wings
// and they actually negotiated a peace accord and both sides agreed to never argue again
// and it lasted about 30 years, unless you count "soft" hostilities

Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

Yeah but punching a guy at a bar because you like his stool better is a dick move.

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

It's enheartening to see in print what many of my Arab buddies have told me in private.

give me doughnuts: Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?

So you think the only way Iraq and Afghanistan could have freed themselves from tyrannical governments and directed the course of their countries' future was by begging white people for help?

No

You racist?

No

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

No doubt. I was just referring to the start. The after part was a blatant land grab. You can't launch a pre-emptive strike claiming self-defense and then not give anything back. Sort of undoes any justification you had previously.

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

Mr. Queeg no doubt strongly disagrees with you because Mr. Queeg hates Jews and is looking for any excuse to condemn them, ideally in a posthumous manner.

Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

If only we had taken that trillion Dollars and spent it here at home. Oh wait, we did, every year for the last 4yrs.

FTFA:
"And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"



......and such as.

clambam: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

Mr. Queeg no doubt strongly disagrees with you because Mr. Queeg hates Jews and is looking for any excuse to condemn them, ideally in a posthumous manner.

I love that I get accused of both hating Jews and being a Jew when I post in Arab/Israeli threads.

In case you missed it, I attacked the entire concept of pre-emptive war, including when the US does it, not just when it is Israeli policy.

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

Well, whaddaya know... Actually, I'd say that may be the exact justification the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor, it but it was not the jusitification they had. In point of fact they had no justification beyond imperial ambitions they saw slipping away as the Chinese and Koreans increasingly tried to free themselves from Japanese domination and the precariousness of the Japanese position--large population, resource-hungry industrial base, resource-poor home territory--became ever more apparent.

Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Or it could have been spent on something useful.

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities

jaybeezey: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

If only we had taken that trillion Dollars and spent it here at home. Oh wait, we did, every year for the last 4yrs.

We did? We aren't still in Iraq and Afghanistan? We aren't paying the mercenaries(Security Contractors)?

clambam: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

Well, whaddaya know... Actually, I'd say that may be the exact justification the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor, it but it was not the jusitification they had. In point of fact they had no justification beyond imperial ambitions they saw slipping away as the Chinese and Koreans increasingly tried to free themselves from Japanese domination and the precariousness of the Japanese position--large population, resource-hungry industrial base, resource-poor home territory--became ever more apparent.

So they used it to justify a land grab to improve their marginal economic and geographic position? Sounds rather familiar.

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

a total force of less than 40 bombers does not a build-up make. Especially considering the Japanese already had a significant fighter presence on Formosa to counter it. And Formosa is not considered one of the home islands.

Less than 40 bombers is as tactical problem that was already countered. If you are referring to the Rainbow Plan that was a long-term defense white paper which was years and years from completion.

The war was started for the strategic reasons:
1) They absolutely needed the oil to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2) They absolutely needed the scrap metal to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy

FTA
"The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?"

This applies not only in the Middle East, but all over the world and it has to stop.

s2s2s2: Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.

Wonderful justification.

madgonad: Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities

So they did it makes it ok?

Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

a total force of less than 40 bombers does not a build-up make. Especially considering the Japanese already had a significant fighter presence on Formosa to counter it. And Formosa is not considered one of the home islands.

Less than 40 bombers is as tactical problem that was already countered. If you are referring to the Rainbow Plan that was a long-term defense white paper which was years and years from completion.

The war was started for the strategic reasons:
1) They absolutely needed the oil to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2) They absolutely needed the scrap metal to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy

Just as the 1967 war was started by the Israelis for strategic reasons. The "pre-emptive" war justification was bullshiat in both cases, just as it was when we used in in 2003. The thing is, in all 3 cases may in power in the attacking countries actually believed their own bullshiat. Many in the Japanese leadership did believe the US was an imminent threat to their existence as a nation.

pdee: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Or it could have been spent on something useful.

Hey! I included Hookers and Blow!

But seriously - the US spends vast sums heating houses in winter and cooling them in summer. This represents a major drain on family finances and makes family energy bills highly dependent on global energy price fluctuations. A long term lowering of energy bills for every family in the country through a program that puts large numbers of people to work in all parts of the country for a long term investment in energy independence may or may not be the most useful way to spend money, but it's a damn sight better than blowing shiat up on the other side of the world and killing a few thousand Americans in the process while sowing long term ill will towards the US.

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You just justified a preemptive attack by Iran, who has been threatened many times.

\bomb bomb bomb Iran

/slowclap.gif

Lots of the questions in the article apply to just about everyone.

give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.

This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.

That's not the case. The build up was going on. A flight of B-17s in transit to the Philippines happened to arrive in Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941. It did not go so well for them. 2 squadrons had already preceded them. There had been a significant build up of aircraft in the Philippines through the fall of 1941.

Duh.

TheGreatGazoo: For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.

... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.

They should be using their enormous wealth to try to find a way for their people to align their way of living with their way of earning. Imagine the number of shoes tied up in a single Scud Missile ...

FTFA:why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?

A better question for us might be: Why is the Republican Platform mirroring that of the Arab states?

rubi_con_man: Duh.

TheGreatGazoo: For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.

... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.

They should be using their enormous wealth to try to find a way for their people to align their way of living with their way of earning. Imagine the number of shoes tied up in a single Scud Missile ...

ahhh, see what the wonders of islam has wrought

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Just as the 1967 war was started by the Israelis for strategic reasons. The "pre-emptive" war justification was bullshiat in both cases, just as it was when we used in in 2003. The thing is, in all 3 cases may in power in the attacking countries actually believed their own bullshiat. Many in the Japanese leadership did believe the US was an imminent threat to their existence as a nation.


Ahh, now I am fully seeing the cut of your jib.
I think the Israeli case for pre-emptive war was considerably more fleshed out than Japans in '41 or the US in '03 (not arguing that it was enough, just saying they had more material, my personal jury is still out), but I understand your point.
/Countries should follow that old adage of the more seedy parts of society: "Never use your own product."

rubi_con_man: ... and this is the great tragedy of the region. With the right infrastructure, they have a chance to use the abundence given to them by God to turn the desert into a paradise (or at least less of a heck-hole) and promulgate his message in prosperity and joy. There should be world-leading institutions of learning for the whole world in Istanbul, Demascus, Cairo, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad and Tangiers. Instead, the world sends their children to Berkley, Boston, New York, Chicago, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Berlin to be inculcated into the western motif of life.

Do not confuse the Muslim world for the oil rich countries of the region. Many of the cities you mention don't have abundant national resources to draw on.

Much of the history of the world is writ through conquest and displacement. Damned Romans, how did they not realize that it's self-evidently wrong and acknowledge that it's only fair that the world stays in complete geopolitical stasis. I'm still worried about the Tibet. Did we free it yet? Fait accompli is obviously the best way to take land in the modern era. Demographic warfare is the new battlefront I suppose. If you can't outfight 'em, outbreed 'em (at some point in the nearish future we'll realize that expanding populations beyond replacement rates is an equally immoral form of resource theft).

Magruda: Wonderful justification.

Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.

Philip Francis Queeg: That's not the case. The build up was going on. A flight of B-17s in transit to the Philippines happened to arrive in Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941. It did not go so well for them. 2 squadrons had already preceded them. There had been a significant build up of aircraft in the Philippines through the fall of 1941.

DO YOU HEAR ME SIR? SIGNIFICANT!!!