Reply With Quote
I wasn't aware that Jordan quite it claim. I thought they still occupied, controlled
that slice of land.
Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, and I believe Jordan quit its claim around 1980.
I wasn't aware that Jordan quite it claim. I thought they still occupied, controlled
that slice of land.
When Arab Nations and Muslim factions cease being bent on the destruction of our friend Israel.
Would you abandon friends being attacked if you were capable of fending off the attackers?
America's Support for Israel Growing
February 13 2006
http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21406
PRINCETON, NJ -- Following the election of Hamas as the Palestinian Authority's ruling party, Americans have grown more pessimistic that peace will ever be achieved in the Middle East, and increasingly sympathetic toward the Israelis. American opinions of the Palestinians had been improving in recent years, but now are among the worst Gallup has ever measured. Most Americans do not believe the United States should give any financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority -- regardless of its stance toward Israel -- and most say the United States should conduct diplomatic relations with the Palestinians if they recognize Israel as a nation.
Increased Sympathy for the Israelis
Gallup's long-standing trend question on the Middle East, first measured in 1988, asks Americans whether their sympathies in the conflict lie more with the Israelis or the Palestinians. As has typically been the case, Americans are much more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (59%) than with the Palestinians (15%), with the remaining 26% not taking either side or not having an opinion. The current figures represent one of the most lopsided margins in favor of the Israelis ever recorded by Gallup. The only other times sympathy has been this high were during the first Persian Gulf War in February 1991 (when Iraq was launching Scud missiles into Israeli territory) and shortly before the start of the second war with Iraq, in February 2003 (58%). In 2004 and 2005, sympathy toward the Palestinians, though still low, was as high as it has been historically (18%).
Republicans (77%) are significantly more likely to sympathize with the Israelis than are Democrats (50%) or independents (50%). Gallup also finds that Americans who say they follow news about world affairs "very closely" are more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (66%) than Americans who follow foreign news only somewhat closely (59%) or who do not follow it closely (52%).
Gallup's World Affairs Poll also obtains basic favorable ratings of a variety of countries each year, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The new poll finds 68% of Americans saying they have a favorable opinion of Israel, including 21% who are "very favorable" toward it. Twenty-three percent view Israel unfavorably. Those numbers are essentially unchanged from last year, and are the most positive for Israel aside from a 79% favorable rating in February 1991 during the first Persian Gulf War.
[QUOTE]Why do you keep bringing up their human rights violations? You won't find anything in my posts that addressed that issue one way or the other.
Knock yourself out and amuse yourself by posting whatever link you wish, you non-anti-semite you, but not on my behalf.
Whatever you come up will pale in comparison to the incessant, willful and premeditated terrorist attacks on Israeli women and children committed by the Palastiinians, Hamas and other Muslim factions.
You've toned that down quite a bit from your previous observation that my stance on the little piece of ground in the Middle East cons uted a "simplistic view of the entire World".As for your simplistic view, ...
Apology accepted.
Thanks, I didn't know that Manny.And don't sit there and act as though I'm making some huge presumptions here. This is the first time the subject has been debated on this board and peoples opinions aren't exactly top secret material.
[QUOTE]
.
The fact that you incessantly harp on Israel in threads with a common theme like this one rules out apathy. Nice try bub.I do not wish for either groups to be annihilated, I simply don't care if they do destroy each other at this point. Do not confuse my apathy with a wish for annihilation of Israel.
Dude, is it so hard for you to get what is being said without taking it on your own course? I show apathy to the future of Israel, but not to American involvement in Israel. I'm sure you can understand the difference, correct?
The HR violations are relevant because it is a country that we support with a third of our entire budget for international aid. It is that simple. People cry out for the suspension of aid to the Palestians because they elected Hamas, but they allow Israel to keep recievicing aid when they have been found guilty of HR violations themselves.
And for the biggest myth of all, Israel needs our support to avoid annihilation nor more than we need Britians support to avoid annihilation from the Taliban. Israel has nuclear weapons and by far the most powerful military in the region. They successfully deafeated any local thread they have outside of Iran. They have the worlds best ABM system that (American) money can buy. They don't need our damn help to stave off annihilation. Its damn time we let them fend for themselves and find a solution to the situation.
[QUOTE]I didn't realize I was supposed to acquiesce to the direction you'd like the discussion to go. It you like the easy road don't get involved in the debate.
As I stated before there are no human rights violations being committed by Israel that compare to purposeful targeting of innocent women and children. Not even close. Do you believe otherwise?The HR violations are relevant because it is a country that we support with a third of our entire budget for international aid. It is that simple. People cry out for the suspension of aid to the Palestians because they elected Hamas, but they allow Israel to keep recievicing aid when they have been found guilty of HR violations themselves.
You're suggesting that we wash our hands of helping Israel thereby possibly putting them in the position of having to use nukes to defend itself against most of the Middle East? That's what they'll do as a last resort.And for the biggest myth of all, Israel needs our support to avoid annihilation nor more than we need Britians support to avoid annihilation from the Taliban. Israel has nuclear weapons and by far the most powerful military in the region.
Bad idea Manny.
You're right Joch. Killing of innocents is less of a crime if its not intentional, but not by much. But the point stands, I do not support the use of internation aid provided by my tax dollars to ANY country which has as many violations of human rights as Israel does. I don't support it for the Palestians, and I don't support it for the Israelis. I think it is pretty damn hard to say that what Israel does when it kills children in the occupied terratories is the equal to suicide bombings, but thats not the point. We don't look at a crime then compare it to another to determine if it is wrong and should be punished. It damn well shoudn't be rewarded.
As for your next point, I hope you don't meant that Palestinian suicide bombing is gonig to lead to a nuclear conflict, do you? What possible scenario after a stopage of United States aid would lead to a nuclear conflict? I think Israel uses improper force all the time but even I don't think they're going to drop some nukes on Gaza.
I assume Israel would use nuclear weapons as a last resort in 2 basic situations. One, an invasion where all other measures have been exhausted and the second being a use of nuclear weapons on Israel by another state first. The first is laughable and the second is only slightly less laughable. In either case, no amount of aid from the United States is going to prevent those weapons from being used in either of those situations. so the point that our foriegn aid somehow prevents that is mind boggling at best.
My point is your parrellellelelelel is no parallel at all.
I though you of all people, having a Latin background, would know Colombia is a country and Columbia is not.
Yes, there has been a quasi-civil war for years but the level of violence has decreased significantly since Uribe took office. Again, the Colombia situation does not resemble the Israel-Palestine in any way.
Smeagol, I don't know what me being from Latin herritage has anything to do with my gross inablity to spell.
Secondly, civil strife is civil strife. I figured people dying resembled people dying but I guess people dying is different. Either way, I digress.
[QUOTE]Okay but that's not what I said.
This is what I said;
1. The Palestinians, hamas and other fanatical Muslims target innocent, unarmed civilians, including women and children.
2. Israeli targets the perpetrators of these de able, cowardly crimes against humanity.
That is the way I presented it in previous posts and you believe the two are almost the same?
1. Targeting innocents is a crime of almost unimaginable proportions. <--Israels enemies.We don't look at a crime then compare it to another to determine if it is wrong and should be punished. It damn well shoudn't be rewarded.
2. Defending yourself against terrorism is not a crime. <--Israel
Can't make it any clearer than that Manny.
I'll save discussion about this if and when we rescind our support for Israel. I don't see that happening anytime soon.As for your next point, I hope you don't meant that Palestinian suicide bombing is gonig to lead to a nuclear conflict, do you? What possible scenario after a stopage of United States aid would lead to a nuclear conflict? I think Israel uses improper force all the time but even I don't think they're going to drop some nukes on Gaza.
I assume Israel would use nuclear weapons as a last resort in 2 basic situations. One, an invasion where all other measures have been exhausted and the second being a use of nuclear weapons on Israel by another state first. The first is laughable and the second is only slightly less laughable. In either case, no amount of aid from the United States is going to prevent those weapons from being used in either of those situations. so the point that our foriegn aid somehow prevents that is mind boggling at best.
Classic response.
One cannot defend the firing of rockets into apartment buildings that contain children and women simply as "defending oneself" when one has other avenues to reach the means.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that the actions of Israelis are completely justifieable regardless of their results? (Nevermind the effectiveness factor which is damn debateable as well)
Manny you are arguing with an individual that had JOHNNY DEPP DRESSED AS A PIRATE
for his avatar for like an entire year
What I wonder is can Joch provide a sound argument for providing Israel a 3rd of our entire international aid budget given their economic and military sitution and their human rights record.
He's a ing neocon; therefore he is christian; therefore he sympathizes with jews moreso than muslims
it's that ing simple
he's that ing simple
all neocons are that ign simple
thats why i only troll the political forum these days
I'll say that if the perpetrators of terrorist acts try to hide behind women and children as a means of avoiding retaliation then the blood of those innocents are on them. No different than the safe house zawqiri was killed in.
They can play that hiding game forever while the Israeli's are picked off 5, 25, 50 at a time.
Better the blood of the innocents that have nothing to do with the conflict and can't move than yours eh? Wow, now there is a Chrisitan viewpoint if I ever saw one.
Actually, thats a terrorists viewpoint if I ever saw one.
[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]As far as I know you're on the outside looking in when it comes to Christianity. With that being the case you're qualifications for offering educated comments on the subject are so limited as to carry no weight.Better the blood of the innocents that have nothing to do with the conflict and can't move than yours eh? Wow, now there is a Chrisitan viewpoint if I ever saw one.
What specifically makes it a terrorist viewpoint Manny? (That means don't generalize)Actually, thats a terrorists viewpoint if I ever saw one.
It is a terroristic viewpoint because you allow your ends to justify your means when it comes to civillian lives. You convinently place the blame at the foot of your enemy instead of accepting responsiblity. That is a fundemental charictaristic of terrorists organizations.
[QUOTE]Let's see, Paul said that we (Christians) see through a glass dimly so that would put those that have chosen to be on the outside of Christianity? What would be a natural worsening progression after "seeing dimly"...I would say blind.
Your definition of terrorism is grossly overstated, presumably so that you can label the "hated" Israels with that le. Nice stretch.It is a terroristic viewpoint because you allow your ends to justify your means when it comes to civillian lives. You convinently place the blame at the foot of your enemy instead of accepting responsiblity. That is a fundemental charictaristic of terrorists organizations.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 06-16-2006 at 11:22 PM. Reason: Quotations added for clarity.
Sound argument = money
EOS
What a stupid statement, dude.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
