DC Tom Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 That doesn't change the fact that I tried to end the beef well before post 147. But you didn't stop being retarded, which is a key requirement of ending "the beef", as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) You and the Israelis say they went on the offensive for self-defense, well that ain't true at all, now is it? They did it for land. Plain and simple. They have one of the strongest military in the world and your trying to tell me that the West Bank and Gaza, which are already predominately occupied by Arabs, is the only thing stopping Israel from being attacked? Get real. Besides, you can't punish people just because you think they might do something. If any of those Arab countries attack Israel, the US and Israelis will wipe the floor with them in less than a week, it's been done before. What you deny the enemy is irrelevant. IF you take good ground that can be defended, destroy airplanes, cut off water supplies...it doesn't matter. ALL of these operations are part of the same tactic: deny the enemy the means to attack successfully. So, by definition, it is a defensive tactic. That is plain and simple, because that is the reality. You take advantageous ground to prevent attack. Israel took that ground, and they hold it...to prevent attack. They have been holding the Golan heights and other territory because...it prevents attack. No amount of spin changes the military realities. The Golan Heights were taken for military advantage, FIRST. Now, if you want to say "but...but..but... the water supply, the agricultural value" etc. Then I will say: that was a secondary concern, and losing wars has consequences. IF the Syrians didn't want to lose the Golan Heights, they shouldn't have attacked Israel. They made a choice, took a risk, and lost. Now you want me to feel sorry for them? Sorry dude. Worse, the Jews tried to give the Golan Heights back...in exchange for lasting peace with Syria. The Syrians, not the Jews, said no. Why? For the same old reason: the Syrians continue to think they can beat the Jews on the field of battle, and the refuse to see the reality that you yourself wrote above. Is that the Jews fault? Is it my fault? The Syrians could have had the Golan Heights this whole time...as long as they promised not to be D-bags. They couldn't make that promise...so F them. There was no "might" here. Syria did attack, and they lost. They lost because frankly, they suck. They refuse to admit that they suck, and keep trying to pretend that one day...they won't suck. That's what this is about. However, I see whining as progress. IF you are whining to the UN, and to the media, about territory you lost...it may mean that you are done with the expectation you will take it back by force..."someday". Whining is good. Whining means go get a lawyer and go to court...instead of go get a gun or a suicide vest. The more whining we hear, and the less psychotic babble...the better off we all are. EDIT: And, you still didn't answer my question: IF we take your assumptions at face value(even though we probably shouldn't, not all of them anyway): Israel just wants land Israel will attack if they feel threatened, even if they aren't Israel will defeat any Arab force because apparently they have the best army in the world And any other ones I missed.... THEN how is creating the conditions for them to attack helpful? for anybody? You want to force them into having a 12 mile strip of land to defend...and at the same time you say they will attack to gain land. By your own argument, you are setting up a situation where they are almost sure to attack, preemptively or not....yet you say you are for peace???? WTF? It looks like instead, you are spoiling for a fight. If you put Israel in that position, according to you, that's just what you'll have. Good luck with that. Edited June 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) Bro, I can care less about the Golan. You're barking up the wrong tree. I see you added to your post. Like I said several times already, and I'll say it again, I don't care if the Palestinians get their own country, just give us equal rights. Can you deal with that? What you deny the enemy is irrelevant. IF you take good ground that can be defended, destroy airplanes, cut off water supplies...it doesn't matter. ALL of these operations are part of the same tactic: deny the enemy the means to attack successfully. So, by definition, it is a defensive tactic. That is plain and simple, because that is the reality. You take advantageous ground to prevent attack. Israel took that ground, and they hold it...to prevent attack. They have been holding the Golan heights and other territory because...it prevents attack. No amount of spin changes the military realities. The Golan Heights were taken for military advantage, FIRST. Now, if you want to say "but...but..but... the water supply, the agricultural value" etc. Then I will say: that was a secondary concern, and losing wars has consequences. IF the Syrians didn't want to lose the Golan Heights, they shouldn't have attacked Israel. They made a choice, took a risk, and lost. Now you want me to feel sorry for them? Sorry dude. Worse, the Jews tried to give the Golan Heights back...in exchange for lasting peace with Syria. The Syrians, not the Jews, said no. Why? For the same old reason: the Syrians continue to think they can beat the Jews on the field of battle, and the refuse to see the reality that you yourself wrote above. Is that the Jews fault? Is it my fault? The Syrians could have had the Golan Heights this whole time...as long as they promised not to be D-bags. They couldn't make that promise...so F them. There was no "might" here. Syria did attack, and they lost. They lost because frankly, they suck. They refuse to admit that they suck, and keep trying to pretend that one day...they won't suck. That's what this is about. However, I see whining as progress. IF you are whining to the UN, and to the media, about territory you lost...it may mean that you are done with the expectation you will take it back by force..."someday". Whining is good. Whining means go get a lawyer and go to court...instead of go get a gun or a suicide vest. The more whining we hear, and the less psychotic babble...the better off we all are. EDIT: And, you still didn't answer my question: IF we take your assumptions at face value(even though we probably shouldn't, not all of them anyway): Israel just wants land Israel will attack if they feel threatened, even if they aren't Israel will defeat any Arab force because apparently they have the best army in the world And any other ones I missed.... THEN how is creating the conditions for them to attack helpful? for anybody? You want to force them into having a 12 mile strip of land to defend...and at the same time you say they will attack to gain land. By your own argument, you are setting up a situation where they are almost sure to attack, preemptively or not....yet you say you are for peace???? WTF? It looks like instead, you are spoiling for a fight. If you put Israel in that position, according to you, that's just what you'll have. Good luck with that. Edited June 1, 2011 by b.harami98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Well then you have a completely different reasoning than your brothers in the middle east who want 1967 borders and east jerusalem. You cant expect equal rights until the violence ends. Given that I recently read an article where Hamas was not satisfied with what egypt is allowing to move in through rafa, maybe Israel is the least of your worries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) Bro, I can care less about the Golan. You're barking up the wrong tree. I see you added to your post. Like I said several times already, and I'll say it again, I don't care if the Palestinians get their own country, just give us equal rights. Can you deal with that? It's not a matter of me dealing with it. As I said, my opinion doesn't matter, and basically I won't really care unless somebody decides to do something stupid. And, even if you solve all your problems and live in joyous harmony...I'll spend the 5 minutes watching that one the news...and then flip to Yankees game. Besides, why would any Jew or Arab care what I think? Oh, that's right, because both of you want my country to keep handing you money/saving you from the other people. Well then, since you both can't seem to resolve your differences, perhaps we should cut both of you off, then blockade the Mediterranean Sea, take over the canals and impose a no-fly zone from Jordan to Algeria. You all keep talking about things that happened in the Stone/Bronze age. Perhaps we should force you back into those times and see if you are happier? If neither of you can accept the fact that the date is 2011, and want to keep pretending it's 1000s of years ago, then perhaps you aren't ready to live like everybody else? See? It's a matter of you dealing with it. I don't see how supporting 1967 borders, while at the same time claiming that Israel is likely to attack for land, makes any sense at all. I don't see how obsessing over what happened over the last 60 years, or the last 600, fixes anything for you on June 1 2011. That's the real question: are you willing to deal with the reality of today's date? I will be impressed if you can simply get that one accomplished for 80% of your people. Then we can move on to the more complicated things. Edited June 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It's not a matter of me dealing with it. As I said, my opinion doesn't matter, and basically I won't really care unless somebody decides to do something stupid. And, even if you solve all your problems and live in joyous harmony...I'll spend the 5 minutes watching that one the news...and then flip to Yankees game. Besides, why would any Jew or Arab care what I think? Oh, that's right, because both of you want my country to keep handing you money/saving you from the other people. Well then, since you both can't seem to resolve your differences, perhaps we should cut both of you off, then blockade the Mediterranean Sea, take over the canals and impose a no-fly zone from Jordan to Algeria. You all keep talking about things that happened in the Stone/Bronze age. Perhaps we should force you back into those times and see if you are happier? If neither of you can accept the fact that the date is 2011, and want to keep pretending it's 1000s of years ago, then perhaps you aren't ready to live like everybody else? See? It's a matter of you dealing with it. I don't see how supporting 1967 borders, while at the same time claiming that Israel is likely to attack for land, makes any sense at all. I don't see how obsessing over what happened over the last 60 years, or the last 600, fixes anything for you on June 1 2011. That's the real question: are you willing to deal with the reality of today's date? I will be impressed if you can simply get that one accomplished for 80% of your people. Then we can move on to the more complicated things. That's because it doesn't. You come to that conclusion on your own. I never said Israel is likely to attack for land in the future, now '67, that's a different story. I do believe they launched their attack in '67 for expansion of land purposes, but if they give that land back, why in the world would they attack anyone to take it back---again? How did you come up with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 That's because it doesn't. You come to that conclusion on your own. I never said Israel is likely to attack for land in the future, now '67, that's a different story. I do believe they launched their attack in '67 for expansion of land purposes, but if they give that land back, why in the world would they attack anyone to take it back---again? How did you come up with that? If the attack was about the land, why did they give back the majority of the land they took in the war? How many times does the same thing have to be repeated to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 BHarami: I still want to know why you think Nassar closed the Straits of Tiran. Was it because he wanted to provoke a war with Israel or was it so Israel would have an excuse to capture land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 If the attack was about the land, why did they give back the majority of the land they took in the war? How many times does the same thing have to be repeated to you? They kept all the good stuff. The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They gave back the crap. You want me to give them credit for that? Plus, they continue to build illegal settlements on the WB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 They kept all the good stuff. The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They gave back the crap. You want me to give them credit for that? Plus, they continue to build illegal settlements on the WB. Giving up land that would have doubled the size of the country and given their military strategic posts on the Suez and the entire northen end of the Red Sea is crap? Keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 They kept all the good stuff. The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They gave back the crap. You want me to give them credit for that? Plus, they continue to build illegal settlements on the WB. 3 questions: 1. Haven't the Israelis given back Gaza? 2. How is the Sinai crap? Control of that gives Israel access to seaports to their east and also puts them right at one of the busiest waterways in the world. It also gives them a significant buffer zone against one of the largest militaries in the ME. Of course that buffer zone isn't as important when you've actually signed a peace treaty w/ that country. 3. Are the Golan Heights "good stuff" or "crap"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 3 questions: 1. Haven't the Israelis given back Gaza? 2. How is the Sinai crap? Control of that gives Israel access to seaports to their east and also puts them right at one of the busiest waterways in the world. It also gives them a significant buffer zone against one of the largest militaries in the ME. Of course that buffer zone isn't as important when you've actually signed a peace treaty w/ that country. 3. Are the Golan Heights "good stuff" or "crap"? This is going to be fun to watch today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 This is going to be fun to watch today... Get your popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 They kept all the good stuff. The West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They gave back the crap. You want me to give them credit for that? Plus, they continue to build illegal settlements on the WB. Clearly all your sources and "hearsay" has to be validiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 BHarami: I still want to know why you think Nassar closed the Straits of Tiran. Was it because he wanted to provoke a war with Israel or was it so Israel would have an excuse to capture land? Nasser, with the support of the Soviet Union, did indeed provoke the Israelis into a war he thought he could win. He felt like the Straits of Tiran belonged to him and wanted to deny the Israelis access. 100% Nasser's fault. Happy? Giving up land that would have doubled the size of the country and given their military strategic posts on the Suez and the entire northen end of the Red Sea is crap? Keep posting. They kept what they wanted to keep. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you believe that Israel is vulnerable to attack without the land they gave back? I think not. They're stronger than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Nasser, with the support of the Soviet Union, did indeed provoke the Israelis into a war he thought he could win. He felt like the Straits of Tiran belonged to him and wanted to deny the Israelis access. 100% Nasser's fault. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Nasser, with the support of the Soviet Union, did indeed provoke the Israelis into a war he thought he could win. He felt like the Straits of Tiran belonged to him and wanted to deny the Israelis access. 100% Nasser's fault. Happy? Welcome to being a pawn in the geopolitical game. They kept what they wanted to keep. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you believe that Israel is vulnerable to attack without the land they gave back? I think not. They're stronger than ever. That's not the question. It was, why did they give up vast strategically important land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 1. When the people of Gaza can receive aid, open an airport without Israeli interference, then we can say they gave Gaza back. Also, the Israelis can enter Gaza whenever they like. That isn't the definition of giving Gaza back. 2. You made my point for me, already. 3. Israel controls the Golan Heights. Why bring up the GH? 3 questions: 1. Haven't the Israelis given back Gaza? 2. How is the Sinai crap? Control of that gives Israel access to seaports to their east and also puts them right at one of the busiest waterways in the world. It also gives them a significant buffer zone against one of the largest militaries in the ME. Of course that buffer zone isn't as important when you've actually signed a peace treaty w/ that country. 3. Are the Golan Heights "good stuff" or "crap"? Welcome to being a pawn in the geopolitical game. That's not the question. It was, why did they give up vast strategically important land? It may not be the answer you're looking for, but that's the bottom line. If the Israelis needed it, they wouldn't have given it back. Just like the Golan Heights, they won't give that back because they want it. The point is, they only give back land they dont need. What's do funny? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, but you wouldn't know nothing about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 1. When the people of Gaza can receive aid, open an airport without Israeli interference, then we can say they gave Gaza back. Also, the Israelis can enter Gaza whenever they like. That isn't the definition of giving Gaza back. And why do you think Gaza can't open an airport? Do you think, under the full cooperation of the PA, they wouldn't have been able to, or was it a result of an election where Militants were put into power and rockets launched daily into Israel from Gaza preventing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 And why do you think Gaza can't open an airport? Do you think, under the full cooperation of the PA, they wouldn't have been able to, or was it a result of an election where Militants were put into power and rockets launched daily into Israel from Gaza preventing it? What does the PA have to do with it? They've been in "control" of the WB fir years and theyre not allowed to have an airport, either. Secondly, the PA and Hamas are together now and they still won't get an airport. How can daily rocket attacks stop a "sovereign" nation from opening their own airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts