Obama: "Back to 1967 borders." Netanyahu: "Not going to happen. Indefensible."

[Little-Acorn]

President Obama made a speech yesterday, in which he announced a bizarre demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders and assume the stance where her enemies had attacked her with impunity again and again.

Today after a talk, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu came out and flatly told the President that such borders were "indefensible", and that the outcome he had requested was "not going to happen".

I've been trying to find an instance where one Head of State told another to go jump in a lake so directly. Closest I can come is at the beginning of WWII, when FDR suggested to Yugoslavia's government that if they resisted Adolf Hitler's attempts at conquest, they would be treated better after the war ended. The Yugoslav govt replied, "You big nations are hard. You talk of our honor, but you are far away".

The difference between then and now is, of course, that Hitoler wasn't trying to destroy Yougoslavia and her neighbors, only to conquer and exploit them. But Israel's enemies have pure destruction and nothing else in mind. Hamas even has that explicitly written into its founding charter, and has had for decades despite civilized nations' pleas that they remove it.

Obama's speech, of course, breaks a promise made to Israel by George Bush, that Israel would never be asked to go back to its pre-1967 borders. Bush at least realized that Israel's very existence was at stake. Too bad Obama doesn't think so. He's going to keep getting embarrassed and slapped down by the Israeli govt as long as he doesn't. Israel has been attacked and nearly destroyed by its neighbors at least four times since they were founded after the end of WWII, including the 1967 war where Egypt, Syria et. al. massed thousands of tanks, armored vehicles around Israel's borders, screaming (for the third time) that they would "throw all the Jews into the sea". Israel had had enough of such unprovoked attacks, so that time they finally struck first, destroying most of the armies with airstrikes and chasing the Egyptians all the way across the Sinai desert. Israel later gave the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt, but that wasn't enough for Egypt.

As Netanyahu patiently told him, "History will not give the Jewish people another chance."

--------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mideast

Disputes 'between friends': Obama, Netanyahu at WH

by ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Erica Werner, Associated Press – 33 mins ago
May 20, 2011

WASHINGTON – Showing no progress toward peace, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat alongside President Barack Obama on Friday and declared that Israel would not withdraw to 1967 borders to help make way for an adjacent Palestinian state. Obama had called on Israel to be willing to do just that a day earlier.

Obama said in his speech on Thursday that the United States supports creation of a Palestinian state based on the border lines that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel forces occupied east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. The comment drew angry criticism in Israel, and Netanyahu made clear after meeting with Obama that the idea was unacceptable.

"We cannot go back to those indefensible lines," said Netanyahu.

Netanyahu said his nation could not negotiate with a newly constituted Palestinian unity government that includes the radical Hamas movement, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. He said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had to choose between continuing the deal with Hamas and making peace with Israel.

"History will not give the Jewish people another chance," Netanyahu said.

Another major stumbling block is how to resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees. Palestinians demands a "right of return" of large numbers of refugees and descendants to Israel, but Israeli leaders say this would dilute the Jewish presence in Israel so that it would no longer be the Jewish state that Netanyahu demands and Obama supports.

"That's not going to happen," Netanyahu said. He said Palestinians need to recognize that, and also said that Israel would not budge on its need for troops on the border with Jordan.

Palestinians reacted angrily. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Netanyahu's comments were tantamount to "his total rejection of the Obama vision and speech."

[Yes, Mr. Erekat, that's what it was. And your point is....?? - LA]

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama is carrying on in the tradition of Yasser Arafat

[Gaffer]

Watch it closely. The dark lord intends Israel be destroyed and will do all he can to make that happen, next he will put sanctions and stop all aid to Israel for daring to defy him. Israel is going to have to hang on for two more years with very little aid from the US.

The only reason the pals want the land back is because its a great staging area for all the arab tanks and rockets. The fighting will be escalating soon.

[red states rule]

Watch it closely. The dark lord intends Israel be destroyed and will do all he can to make that happen, next he will put sanctions and stop all aid to Israel for daring to defy him. Israel is going to have to hang on for two more years with very little aid from the US.

The only reason the pals want the land back is because its a great staging area for all the arab tanks and rockets. The fighting will be escalating soon.

Obama wants Israel to go along with its own extermination

[Gaffer]

Obama wants Israel to go along with its own extermination

I wonder if the media would be there covering the slaughter in the streets. I have a feeling the real facts would be buried and a totally false picture would be presented as the arabs moved through and mowed down everyone that moved. The media would show smiling faces as the muslims are embraced as liberators. 13 million dead Jews would not be mentioned.

[red states rule]

I wonder if the media would be there covering the slaughter in the streets. I have a feeling the real facts would be buried and a totally false picture would be presented as the arabs moved through and mowed down everyone that moved. The media would show smiling faces as the muslims are embraced as liberators. 13 million dead Jews would not be mentioned.

Hell no they won't Gaffer

To the liberal media Israel is the problem. They live. They exist

Obama wants Israel to be unable to defend itself. Obama wants Israel to take the width of the country from 45 miles to 8 miles. Israel would no longer be able to have their troops on the banks of the Jordan.

Obama wants Israel to put up a sign that rwad "GO AHEAD AND ATTACK"

[Gaffer]

Hell no they won't Gaffer

To the liberal media Israel is the problem. They live. They exist

Obama wants Israel to be unable to defend itself. Obama wants Israel to take the width of the country from 45 miles to 8 miles. Israel would no longer be able to have their troops on the banks of the Jordan.

Obama wants Israel to put up a sign that rwad "GO AHEAD AND ATTACK"

That's what he wants. And the media sides with him. If it was done, and Israel won't do it, then it would mean a slaughter. And the media would remain silent while the slaughter went on.

Fortunately Israel has a strong leader who today told the dark lord to stuff it. The dark lord will be ordering his hamas and hezbo allies to begin hostilities shortly. Half his administration is muslim or pro-muslim. The rocket attacks will probably start in the next week or so.

[red states rule]

That's what he wants. And the media sides with him. If it was done, and Israel won't do it, then it would mean a slaughter. And the media would remain silent while the slaughter went on.

Fortunately Israel has a strong leader who today told the dark lord to stuff it. The dark lord will be ordering his hamas and hezbo allies to begin hostilities shortly. Half his administration is muslim or pro-muslim. The rocket attacks will probably start in the next week or so.

If Obama gets his way -which I doubt - the terrorists will be within hand grenade of most of Israel

I guess Obama wants to do to Isrrael what he has done to America

[Gaffer]

If Obama gets his way -which I doubt - the terrorists will be within hand grenade of most of Israel

I guess Obama wants to do to Isrrael what he has done to America

Yes he does, only worse. I expect him to try the Vietnam trick. Cut off all aid so they can't defend themselves. It's more of his arab spring tactics. In my opinion he's a mecca candidate rather than a Manchurian candidate.
He's socialist that thinks he can use and control the muslims.

Any liberal Jews that supported him need to look long and hard at his policies from here on out. This is a dangerous man.

[red states rule]

Yes he does, only worse. I expect him to try the Vietnam trick. Cut off all aid so they can't defend themselves. It's more of his arab spring tactics. In my opinion he's a mecca candidate rather than a Manchurian candidate.
He's socialist that thinks he can use and control the muslims.

Any liberal Jews that supported him need to look long and hard at his policies from here on out. This is a dangerous man.

Now the administration is backtracking and Obama's comments were "misrepresented"

Grab your barf bag and listen to the spin

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rd-jPpHIgAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/175749.JPG

[Gaffer]

Now the administration is backtracking and Obama's comments were "misrepresented"

Grab your barf bag and listen to the spin

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rd-jPpHIgAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Another excuse maker.

[red states rule]

Another excuse maker.

He is a supporter of Obama so he is use to it after 2 years

[fj1200]

The whole concept is galling to me, that a President gets up and makes a speech telling another country what they should do. It's one thing to be involved in the "peace" process but it's another to blind side an ally with ridiculous demands.

[red states rule]

The whole concept is galling to me, that a President gets up and makes a speech telling another country what they should do. It's one thing to be involved in the "peace" process but it's another to blind side an ally with ridiculous demands.

Obama is sucking up to the Muslims - what else could he do? He thinks he has the Jewish vote locked up here in America so what does he have to lose?

Execept honor - which he never had anyway

[Kathianne]

The whole concept is galling to me, that a President gets up and makes a speech telling another country what they should do. It's one thing to be involved in the "peace" process but it's another to blind side an ally with ridiculous demands.

Whether he realizes it or not, he's pushing Israel towards aggression, cause that is what its neighbors will be doing, now that they feel US is out.

[Gaffer]

Whether he realizes it or not, he's pushing Israel towards aggression, cause that is what its neighbors will be doing, now that they feel US is out.

Exactly, and they will operate just as they did in 67 to stop the invasion through preemptive strikes.

[red states rule]

Exactly, and they will operate just as they did in 67 to stop the invasion through preemptive strikes.

And Obama will blame them for defending their country.

I am seeing an increase of the hatred of the Jewish people that reminds me on 1933 Germany

[Kathianne]

A bridging of Carter/Obama on Israel and worst president ever threads:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267733/re-israel-and-obamas-radical-past-steven-f-hayward


Re: Israel and Obama’s Radical Past
May 20, 2011 11:42 A.M.
By Steven F. Hayward

Regarding Stanley’s post highlighting the almost certain ideological hostility Obama has for Israel, I’m reminded again of Glenn Reynolds’s refrain that a rerun of the Carter administration may be the best-case scenario for the Obama presidency. Cy Vance, Carter’s disaffected secretary of state, wrote in his memoirs that Carter had planned to sell out Israel if he was reelected in 1980. Obama looks poised to pick up where Jimmy left off.

[Kathianne]

Worth reading:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267731/israel-and-obamas-radical-past-stanley-kurtz


Israel and Obama’s Radical Past
May 20, 2011 10:05 A.M.
By Stanley Kurtz

Does President Obama’s radical past tell us anything significant about his stance on Israel today? Perhaps more important, do the radical alliances of Obama’s Chicago days raise a warning flag about what the president’s position on Israel may be in 2013, should he safely secure reelection? Many will deny it, but I believe Obama’s radical history speaks volumes about the past, present, and likely future course of his policy on Israel.

The Los Angeles Times has long refused to release a videotape in its possession of a farewell dinner, attended by Obama, for scholar and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Obama spoke warmly of his friendship for Khalidi at that event. Unfortunately, the continuing mystery of that video tape has obscured the rather remarkable article that the LA Times did publish about the dinner — and about Obama’s broader views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In light of the controversy over Obama’s remarks on Israel in his address yesterday on the Middle East, it is worth revisiting that 2008 article from the LA Times.

The extraordinary thing about “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” is that in it, Obama’s supporters say that in claiming to be pro-Israel, he is hiding his true views from the public. Having observed his personal associations, his open political alliances, his public statements, and his private remarks, Obama’s Palestinian allies steadfastly maintain that Obama’s private views are far more pro-Palestinian than he lets on...

[DragonStryk72]

I wonder if the media would be there covering the slaughter in the streets. I have a feeling the real facts would be buried and a totally false picture would be presented as the arabs moved through and mowed down everyone that moved. The media would show smiling faces as the muslims are embraced as liberators. 13 million dead Jews would not be mentioned.

Actually, I think you give them far too much credit. No, they'll all be shocked that suddenly there's violence, like they just can't understand how it could happen.

This is one of the central problems of this, is that they just can't quite get that both states can't exist next to each other. It hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to happen. Better to let Israel off the leash and stop it that way.

[Gaffer]

Actually, I think you give them far too much credit. No, they'll all be shocked that suddenly there's violence, like they just can't understand how it could happen.

This is one of the central problems of this, is that they just can't quite get that both states can't exist next to each other. It hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to happen. Better to let Israel off the leash and stop it that way.

Your absolutely right on that. They would be shocked and speculate how this could happen. I'm in agreement about unleashing Israel too. Clean out gaza and the west bank and drive the arabs back into the countries they came from, syria and jordan. Then build settlements in all the conquered lands and tell the un to fuck themselves.

[Kathianne]

Your absolutely right on that. They would be shocked and speculate how this could happen. I'm in agreement about unleashing Israel too. Clean out gaza and the west bank and drive the arabs back into the countries they came from, syria and jordan. Then build settlements in all the conquered lands and tell the un to fuck themselves.

I don't think we'll 'unleash' Israel, I think Obama's actions will result in Israel acting on their own.

[Gaffer]

I don't think we'll 'unleash' Israel, I think Obama's actions will result in Israel acting on their own.

I think so too. And they will only take being pushed so far.

[DragonStryk72]

I just thought of the line from Demolition Man, "You can't take away people's right to be assholes".

Our own history teaches us that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."

This is a manner of thinking we seem to have abandoned somewhere along the line, that we do not know what is right for everyone, that we can only know what is right for us, and that we have absolutely no right to tell others how to live.

We are fighting the whole War on Terror in the wrong way. We keep trying to make everybody play nice, but that's just not realistic. Should we help Israel? Sure, fine, but not with money. What we need to do is make certain that their nation has secure borders, and that means allowing them to defend those borders as needed, not stepping on their nuts every time they make a motion toward their enemies.

At home, we need to increase liberty. Get rid of the naked body scanners in the airports and such, and dismantle the Patriot Act. Streamline the immigration process, and make it so that doctorates gained overseas still count over here, and become a beacon for the rest of the world. Show everyone what we all know here: That we are the freest people on the planet.

[red states rule]

and the liberal media is waving their pom poms in support of Obama. They even "report" how some in Israel agree with Obama - but can't name any


<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/101908" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Gaffer]

The dark lord is hemming and hawing again. Trying to back away from what he really meant and spin the lie.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg052011dAPR20110520044517.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg052011dAPR20110520044517.jpg

I take high offense at this: Nothing Obama has done in his entire time in office suggests he had a plan for the Middle East.

[red states rule]

I take high offense at this: Nothing Obama has done in his entire time in office suggests he had a plan for the Middle East.

His plan is thecEradication of Israel

[DragonStryk72]

His plan is thecEradication of Israel

Really? Him jumping back and forth like a lemur on crack is a plan? It seems more like a pedantic cluster fuck

[red states rule]

Really? Him jumping back and forth like a lemur on crack is a plan? It seems more like a pedantic cluster fuck

I suspect this "plan" popped in his head about 4 min after OBL assumed room temp

Obama has to suck up to the Muslims and what better way then selling out Israel?

[DragonStryk72]

What we should do at this point is look at Palestine and go, "Suck it up. Stand down, or the next time you attack Israel, we will not only let them off the leash, but we'll send a few of our spec ops folks to train them."

But there I go, being all sensible and such. It goes back to speaking softly and carrying the big stick.

[SassyLady]

I wonder if the media would be there covering the slaughter in the streets. I have a feeling the real facts would be buried and a totally false picture would be presented as the arabs moved through and mowed down everyone that moved. The media would show smiling faces as the muslims are embraced as liberators. 13 million dead Jews would not be mentioned.

That won't happen...Israel will take out 10 to one in a fight.

[Kathianne]

What we should do at this point is look at Palestine and go, "Suck it up. Stand down, or the next time you attack Israel, we will not only let them off the leash, but we'll send a few of our spec ops folks to train them."

But there I go, being all sensible and such. It goes back to speaking softly and carrying the big stick.

Their people are trained, as good as our spec. ops. Obama wouldn't help them, but too late for him. He's given them the 'go ahead.' They've no choice.

[DragonStryk72]

Their people are trained, as good as our spec. ops. Obama wouldn't help them, but too late for him. He's given them the 'go ahead.' They've no choice.

So nice of him to give them permission to defend themselves.

Seriously, it would be like the Taliban having control of Mexico, and the UN repeatedly stopping us from attacking them after they take a cheap shot at us. It just can't stand. Our two philosophies are directly at odds, and while ours allows for the existence of theirs, the same cannot be said in reverse.

Any country that has a provision of their founding principles that goes something like, "We will destroy country x" has already accepted war, because they have just declared war as their mission statement. It isn't difficult.

[Thunderknuckles]

That won't happen...Israel will take out 10 to one in a fight.
...and that's a conservative estimate:p Aside from the six day war in '67, the Israelis have been pretty tame. Woe to the nation(s) that attempt to wipe Israel off the map even without US support.

The Israelis have a long memory. There will not be a repeat of 70 AD without releasing the wrath of God and every last Israeli in Israel has been slain.

[SassyLady]

...and that's a conservative estimate:p Aside from the six day war in '67, the Israelis have been pretty tame. Woe to the nation(s) that attempt to wipe Israel off the map even without US support.

The Israelis have a long memory. There will not be a repeat of 70 AD without releasing the wrath of God and every last Israeli in Israel has been slain.

Very conservative ... who knows....maybe this is what needs to happen. Maybe the people who hate Israel need to have a refresher course about how tolerant Israel has been up to this point....and a reminder of what they are capable of doing to protect what they have.

[Kathianne]

So nice of him to give them permission to defend themselves.

Seriously, it would be like the Taliban having control of Mexico, and the UN repeatedly stopping us from attacking them after they take a cheap shot at us. It just can't stand. Our two philosophies are directly at odds, and while ours allows for the existence of theirs, the same cannot be said in reverse.

Any country that has a provision of their founding principles that goes something like, "We will destroy country x" has already accepted war, because they have just declared war as their mission statement. It isn't difficult.

You misread what I implied. By saying what he did, advancing the Palestinian side, Israel has no recourse but themselves. They've been 'pretty tame' for the simple reason they knew the US backed them, that's gone now.

[red states rule]

According to CNN's Fareed Zakaria (who admittes giving advice to Obama) says the speech President Obama gave last week about conditions in the Middle East was "fair" and "balanced."

When you stop shaking yoiur head is disbelief that any "reporter" can say that with a straight face - here is the video you can watch

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/22/fareed-zakaria-obamas-middle-east-speech-fair-and-balanced#ixzz1NAUWjodo




<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/101960" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

Very conservative ... who knows....maybe this is what needs to happen. Maybe the people who hate Israel need to have a refresher course about how tolerant Israel has been up to this point....and a reminder of what they are capable of doing to protect what they have.

Well Obama said he would transform America into what he thinks it should be and he is doing just that. One talking head pointed out this is the first time in our history we have not supported Isreal

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/101958" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Little-Acorn]

The government has the power to collect money, redistribute money and print money. It's the one entity that can do whatever it wants, and never pays taxes itself

You got the first and third right here, but you blew the second. The govt has no authority to "redistribute" money. They have the power to spend it, on national defense and on whatever programs help ALL Americans EQUALLY - that's what the "Welfare clause" actually says. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is strictly unconstitutional.

Of course, that doesn't stop them - they do it anyway. But they don't "have the power" to do it, any more than they have the power to enact black slavery or gun control.

[fj1200]

President Obama made a speech yesterday, in which he announced a bizarre demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders...

Not sure what all you people are so jazzed about, this is nothing more than an extension of logic where success must be taxed and the oppressed shall benefit at the expense of others. It's not so much that the Jews are better/worse than their neighbors as a people it's that their way of life has exposed themselves as the rich and they only get that way at the expense of others. They must give back.

You guys don't see that the rich in our country only have to go back to pre-'67 tax rates in our country in order to quell the war with the poor that has been fomenting since?













;)

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz052311dAPR20110520064517.jpg

[red states rule]

You got the first and third right here, but you blew the second. The govt has no authority to "redistribute" money. They have the power to spend it, on national defense and on whatever programs help ALL Americans EQUALLY - that's what the "Welfare clause" actually says. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is strictly unconstitutional.

Of course, that doesn't stop them - they do it anyway. But they don't "have the power" to do it, any more than they have the power to enact black slavery or gun control.

I did not say they had the authority - they have the power LA. The left has transformed the tax code in the bigget welfare program the world has ever seen

[red states rule]

Seems Andrea Mitchell has her tail feathers ruffled over the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refusal to roll over as Obama has demanded





At the end of Sunday's Meet the Press, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell scolded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for daring to criticize President Obama's call for Israel to return to 1967 borders: "...he criticized the President, and in such a fashion! He lectured him in the Oval Office....basically treating him like a school boy."

Mitchell went on to declare: "People even who work for Netanyahu, some Israeli officials, told him later that he went too far. That it was, it was really rude and that there would be blowback to this." The leading voice of criticism in Israel was Netanyahu's liberal political opponent, Tzipi Livini, who also called on the Prime Minister to resign.

On her 1PM ET hour MSNBC show on Friday, Mitchell also took Republican presidential candidates to task for denouncing Obama's call for pre-1967 war borders in Israel, remarking: "Whatever happened to politics ending at the water's edge?"

On Meet the Press, moments after Mitchell's rant against Netanyahu, Democratic Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen mimicked her Friday concerns: "I think the Republicans make a very serious mistake if they decide to politicize this issue. The support for Israel in the United States has always been a bipartisan issue, and I don't think it serves anybody's interests, not the United States' interests, nor the interests of Israel, to have this become a big partisan issue."

Only fellow panelist, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, acknowledged the serious mistake Obama had made: "I think he'll be in full retreat, but I'll bet we pick up 75,000 votes in Florida, which could be a lot....It was a clumsy move by the President." However, Murphy added: "Just those sentences. The rest of the speech was great."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/05/23/nbcs-mitchell-admonishes-really-rude-netanyahu-treating-obama-school-b#ixzz1NGSizGNm

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/175825.png

[red states rule]

Amzing how the liberal media all have the same take on PM Benjamin Netanyahu

Now he knows how members of the Tea Party feel






For many in the media Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to Barack Obama insistence that his country return to the 1967 borders was out of bounds. ABC's Christiane Amanpour declared she was "stunned" by his "public lecture" of the President and NBC's Andrea Mitchell hissed, "it was really rude," and charged he treated Obama "like a school boy." Mitchell didn't reserve her criticism to Netanyahu as she even went after Republicans who dared to take his side, accusing them of "piling on the President."



Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/05/24/media-throw-fit-over-rude-netanyahu-lecturing-obama#ixzz1NJ1BsUTU

[DragonStryk72]

Amzing how the liberal media all have the same take on PM Benjamin Netanyahu

Now he knows how members of the Tea Party feel

How dare he react badly to someone telling him how to run his country, when they have never once fought in a battle, and don't understand the situation in his country.

[Thunderknuckles]

Obama and Andrea Mitchell just don't understand the scope of history that the Jews see the world through. Here you have a people with 4,000 years of history with this little piece of land. They've been invaded, victorious, conquered, enslaved, evicted, and subject to extermination. In Obama we have, by Jewish historical standards, the leader of an up-start nation with little history behind it, telling the leader of Israel what is in the best interests of Israel.

Andrea Mitchell is correct when she says Obama was treated like a school boy. What she doesn't grasp is that he deserved it and then some.

[Little-Acorn]

Obama and Andrea Mitchell just don't understand the scope of history that the Jews see the world through.
Jews aren't the only ones who see it that way.

Other people have been watching too, while most of Eurasia persecuted the Jews worse than any other group in the history of mankind, for millenium after millenium.

And when decent people hear Obama ape the same line of propaganda that Arabs have been using to help destroy Israel, they DON'T just forget it and move on.


Andrea Mitchell is correct when she says Obama was treated like a school boy. What she doesn't grasp is that he deserved it and then some.

Did I miss Andrea Mitchell's broadcast in which she criticized *Obama* for treating *Netanyahu* like a schoolboy, lecturing him on how to change the borders of his own country without even checking to see if it is remotely fair, within his nation's interests, or even possible?

[maineman]

I, for one, think that Israel needs to contemplate the geopolitical forces that are in play as a result of the arab spring... they need to make peace with their neighbors, and if giving back land that they took in war is a way to make that peace, then that, in the long run, will be a good thing for Israel and a good thing for the USA.

p.s. gosh... it's good to be back at DP.

[red states rule]

I still want to know how Obama expects Israel to deal with people whose only goal in life is too wipe Israel off the face of the map

[maineman]

I still want to know how Obama expects Israel to deal with people whose only goal in life is too wipe Israel off the face of the map

I don't think he expects any such thing. I think he hopes that Fatah can bring Hamas along into the real world and get them to abandon their violent premise. If the palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, there will be no peace and our government will certainly not expect Israel to accept any peace that does not include their recognition and an abandonment of a violent agenda, imho.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't think he expects any such thing. I think he hopes that Fatah can bring Hamas along into the real world and get them to abandon their violent premise.
I think Abbas is moderate enough to officially accept Israel's right to exist but he has to cater to the fanatics in Hamas as well. As it stands now, Hamas can shield their violence under "resistance to Zionist occupiers" and there are enough people out there that buy it. However, once Palestine is granted sovereignty, that same violence falls under an official act of war and we all know where that will lead. The big question, as you pointed out, is can Hamas be brought into the real world? I'm not holding my breath.

[maineman]

I think Abbas is moderate enough to officially accept Israel's right to exist but he has to cater to the fanatics in Hamas as well. As it stands now, Hamas can shield their violence under "resistance to Zionist occupiers" and there are enough people out there that buy it. However, once Palestine is granted sovereignty, that same violence falls under an official act of war and we all know where that will lead. The big question, as you pointed out, is can Hamas be brought into the real world? I'm not holding my breath.


neither am I... but I certainly know that Obama does not expect Israel to make any deals with anybody who is still pushing for their demise.

[Trigg]

neither am I... but I certainly know that Obama does not expect Israel to make any deals with anybody who is still pushing for their demise.


It's amazing that you "certainly know" what bambam has in mind when discussing Israel.

It's preposterous to suggest that Israel should go back to 1967 borders.

[maineman]

It's amazing that you "certainly know" what bambam has in mind when discussing Israel.

It's preposterous to suggest that Israel should go back to 1967 borders.

not at all. America has NEVER expected Israel to make peace with people who seek their destruction.

And it is absolutely NOT preposterous... most everyone I have ever spoken to that has followed middle eastern foreign affairs knows that Israel giving back large chunks of the West Bank and Gaze are a given if the two state solution have any chance of success.

[Trigg]

not at all. America has NEVER expected Israel to make peace with people who seek their destruction.

And it is absolutely NOT preposterous... most everyone I have ever spoken to that has followed middle eastern foreign affairs knows that Israel giving back large chunks of the West Bank and Gaze are a given if the two state solution have any chance of success.

I would suggest you speak to more Jews then

[maineman]

I would suggest you speak to more Jews then

during my service with the UN in the middle east, I spoke to more Jews than you will speak with in your entire life, I would imagine.

[Trigg]

during my service with the UN in the middle east, I spoke to more Jews than you will speak with in your entire life, I would imagine.

Ah well, now you not even know what bambam is thinking, you also know who I've talked to in my life.

I bow to your omnipotence :lame2:

[maineman]

Ah well, now you not even know what bambam is thinking, you also know who I've talked to in my life.


there is a difference between KNOWING and imagining.... like I said, anyone who knows anything about middle eastern policy knows that Israel will need to give up land for peace.... and, I really don't need to talk to any more Jews to verify that observation.

[fj1200]

I don't think he expects any such thing. I think he hopes that Fatah can bring Hamas along into the real world and get them to abandon their violent premise. If the palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist, there will be no peace and our government will certainly not expect Israel to accept any peace that does not include their recognition and an abandonment of a violent agenda, imho.

There is no chance of that.


there is a difference between KNOWING and imagining.... like I said, anyone who knows anything about middle eastern policy knows that Israel will need to give up land for peace.... and, I really don't need to talk to any more Jews to verify that observation.

I'm not sure how the above posts could have come from the same person. Giving up land will not get Hamas to "abandon their violent premise."

[maineman]

There is no chance of that.



I'm not sure how the above posts could have come from the same person. Giving up land will not get Hamas to "abandon their violent premise."

YOu misunderstand me. I would never advocate Israel giving up a single acre UNLESS Hamas abandoned their violent premise, or unless the palestinian people abandoned Hamas.

What I think might very well happen is that, if the palestinian people, especially those in Gaza, see that Israel is WILLING to consider significant land for peace swaps, they might very well oust Hamas from power and realign themselves with Fatah.

If not, Israel doesn't lose any land.

unfortunately, if not, Israel also does not gain any peace.

[red states rule]

Ah well, now you not even know what bambam is thinking, you also know who I've talked to in my life.

I bow to your omnipotence :lame2:

http://deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploads/LiberalsAlwaysWrongButPleasedWithThemselves.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

there is a difference between KNOWING and imagining.... like I said, anyone who knows anything about middle eastern policy knows that Israel will need to give up land for peace.... and, I really don't need to talk to any more Jews to verify that observation.

And what will Palestine have to give up? Because otherwise, you're pretty much just asking Israel to taking an ass-kicking for the sake of making nice.

[DragonStryk72]

YOu misunderstand me. I would never advocate Israel giving up a single acre UNLESS Hamas abandoned their violent premise, or unless the palestinian people abandoned Hamas.

What I think might very well happen is that, if the palestinian people, especially those in Gaza, see that Israel is WILLING to consider significant land for peace swaps, they might very well oust Hamas from power and realign themselves with Fatah.

If not, Israel doesn't lose any land.

unfortunately, if not, Israel also does not gain any peace.

So when Hamas is destroyed then? Because that's their mission statement, to destroy Israel. Or here's one, what if HAMAS... lies? What if they go along with it until they have the land?

[red states rule]

I wishwe had a man more like PM Benjamin Netanyahu as our President.

He stood up to Obama and refuses to compromise the security of his country to appease Obama. He knows what is going on over there while Obama does not have a clue (which is normal)

I can imagine the arrogance of Obama turning into anger as he was humiliated in front of Congress

[maineman]

And what will Palestine have to give up? Because otherwise, you're pretty much just asking Israel to taking an ass-kicking for the sake of making nice.

practically, they would have to give up their goal to drive all Israelis into the sea and give up their dream of the destruction of the state of Israel.

[red states rule]

practically, they would have to give up their goal to drive all Israelis into the sea and give up their dream of the destruction of the state of Israel.

and welcome to Fantasy Island!!!!

[DragonStryk72]

practically, they would have to give up their goal to drive all Israelis into the sea and give up their dream of the destruction of the state of Israel.

Yeah... I that'll happen about when we give up on that whole voting for public officials thing we've been doing the last couple of centuries.

[red states rule]

Yeah... I that'll happen about when we give up on that whole voting for public officials thing we've been doing the last couple of centuries.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DragonStryk72 again.

[maineman]

Yeah... I that'll happen about when we give up on that whole voting for public officials thing we've been doing the last couple of centuries.

Fatah gave up that goal. The PLO gave up that goal. Hamas can give it up, or, more likely, the palestinian people will move away from the Israeli-hatred that Hamas has been selling them and move toward a less violent less hateful position like the PLO leadership did. THe arab spring was not about Israeli hatred, it was about democracy and freedom and the arabs of palestine are no different than the arabs of egypt, tunisia and libya.

[red states rule]

Fatah gave up that goal. The PLO gave up that goal. Hamas can give it up, or, more likely, the palestinian people will move away from the Israeli-hatred that Hamas has been selling them and move toward a less violent less hateful position like the PLO leadership did. THe arab spring was not about Israeli hatred, it was about democracy and freedom and the arabs of palestine are no different than the arabs of egypt, tunisia and libya.

With voters like you PM Benjamin Netanyahu can now understand how we elected this nitwit named Obama President

[maineman]

With voters like you PM Benjamin Netanyahu can now understand how we elected this nitwit named Obama President

personal attacks devoid of any content germane to the thread.

plus ce que change, plus ce gue meme chose.

[red states rule]

personal attacks devoid of any content germane to the thread.

plus ce que change, plus ce gue meme chose.

What personal attack? I called Obama a nitwit which is a correct discription on this policy

PM Netanyahu gave Obama a lesson on how real leaders should act

[maineman]

did Sadat abandon his goal to destroy Israel? what was the result of that change of heart? thirty years of relative peace between former adversaries? The PLO abandoned its goal to destroy the state of Israel. Arafat accepted the existence of the state of Israel. The palestinians of the west bank accept the existence of Israel. I would doubt that, after the Arab spring, that a majority of palestinians in gaza have NOT abandoned that goal and would opt for a more peaceful and collaborative relationship with israel if they could get it. I would think that Hamas has lost clout in the wake of the events throughout the region, but we will have to see what happens the next time the folks in gaza get a chance to vote on their leadership.

[fj1200]

YOu misunderstand me. I would never advocate Israel giving up a single acre UNLESS Hamas abandoned their violent premise, or unless the palestinian people abandoned Hamas.

What I think might very well happen is that, if the palestinian people, especially those in Gaza, see that Israel is WILLING to consider significant land for peace swaps, they might very well oust Hamas from power and realign themselves with Fatah.

If not, Israel doesn't lose any land.

unfortunately, if not, Israel also does not gain any peace.

I believe Israel was WILLING under the deal they were presented with under Clinton, rejected as I recall and peace did not reign. Peace will not come first with Israel proposing to give up land for it. Peace will come when Palestinians have more interest in living than dying.

[red states rule]

I believe Israel was WILLING under the deal they were presented with under Clinton, rejected as I recall and peace did not reign. Peace will not come first with Israel proposing to give up land for it. Peace will come when Palestinians have more interest in living than dying.

Peace will come when one side is BEATEN and is willing to surrender

[maineman]

I believe Israel was WILLING under the deal they were presented with under Clinton, rejected as I recall and peace did not reign. Peace will not come first with Israel proposing to give up land for it. Peace will come when Palestinians have more interest in living than dying.

like I said... no one is suggesting that Israel give up ANY land without the palestinians giving up their quest to destroy Israel.

If Israel steps up and lays land for peace on the table, it will be up to the palestinians to accept or reject it.

[red states rule]

like I said... no one is suggesting that Israel give up ANY land without the palestinians giving up their quest to destroy Israel.

If Israel steps up and lays land for peace on the table, it will be up to the palestinians to accept or reject it.

See post #79

[maineman]

See post #79

that is your opinion. it is an opinion that I disagree with and I do so based upon some extensive experience in the area. clearly, peace happened between Israel and Egypt under different circumstances than you suggest.

[red states rule]

that is your opinion. it is an opinion that I disagree with and I do so based upon some extensive experience in the area. clearly, peace happened between Israel and Egypt under different circumstances than you suggest.

I keep forgetting in your mind you are Gen Patton, Gen MacArthur, and Adm Nimitz all rolled into one :laugh2:

[maineman]

I keep forgetting in your mind you are Gen Patton, Gen MacArthur, and Adm Nimitz all rolled into one :laugh2:

again...personal attacks devoid of substance.

I have neve claimed to be any of those men... I merely claim to have more first hand knowledge of the middle east and of the mindset of both Israelis and Palestinians living there than you do.

WHen did peace come to Egypt and Israel? was it, as you suggest, when one side was BEATEN and willing to surrender?

of course not.

[red states rule]

again...personal attacks devoid of substance.

I have neve claimed to be any of those men... I merely claim to have more first hand knowledge of the middle east and of the mindset of both Israelis and Palestinians living there than you do.

WHen did peace come to Egypt and Israel? was it, as you suggest, when one side was BEATEN and willing to surrender?

of course not.

No attack. Almost on a daily basis you brag about you background, and draw it out more often then Jesse James drew his gun

[maineman]

let me try again:


WHen did peace come to Egypt and Israel? was it, as you suggest, when one side was BEATEN and willing to surrender?

of course not.

[fj1200]

WHen did peace come to Egypt and Israel? was it, as you suggest, when one side was BEATEN and willing to surrender?

of course not.

So Egypt wasn't BEATEN in the Six-Day War and Israel wasn't occupying the Sinai?

OK. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

let me try again:


WHen did peace come to Egypt and Israel? was it, as you suggest, when one side was BEATEN and willing to surrender?

of course not.

Yes. That was exactly when peace came to be between those two countries.

Israel beat the snot out of Egypt and they couldn't wave that white flag hard enough.

[maineman]

So Egypt wasn't BEATEN in the Six-Day War and Israel wasn't occupying the Sinai?

OK.

So... I take it, that you believe that Anwar Sadat came to the negotiating table at Camp David the beaten leader of a beaten country and he SURRENDERED to Israel there eleven years after the end of the aforementioned six-day war?

if you say so. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

So... I take it, that you believe that Anwar Sadat came to the negotiating table at Camp David the beaten leader of a beaten country and he SURRENDERED to Israel there eleven years after the end of the aforementioned six-day war?

if you say so. :rolleyes:

So you're contention is that Egypt came to the table in a position of power? That Egyptian lands were not being occupied by a foreign power? That Israel's military history is one of defeat and incompetence?

That's quite the position you need to take.

[maineman]

So you're contention is that Egypt came to the table in a position of power? That Egyptian lands were not being occupied by a foreign power? That Israel's military history is one of defeat and incompetence?

That's quite the position you need to take.

I never said any of those things. A giant chunk of worthless desert was being occupied. Israel's military IS tough and kicks the shit out of opponents routinely. Having said that, Sadat surrendered nothing at Camp David.. he did NOT come to the table with a weak hand, but a relatively strong one. Israel needed peace on its southern flank and it needed to gain some purchase within the arab community that might assist in the palestinian problem. Sadat and Egypt offered those possibilities and peace WAS achieved between the two countries. Too bad that the muslim brotherhood got to him. Oddly enough, although Sadat was hailed as a great diplomat throughout the world because of Camp David, he was reviled in the arab world for the same thing. The night he died, over a dozen people were killed in Beirut from bullets falling from the sky that had been shot skyward in celebration for his assassination. Nonetheless, Mubarek was able to maintain the peace between them and, for 30 years, Israel has not had to worry about its southern flank.

[NightTrain]

I never said any of those things. A giant chunk of worthless desert was being occupied. Israel's military IS tough and kicks the shit out of opponents routinely. Having said that, Sadat surrendered nothing at Camp David.. he did NOT come to the table with a weak hand, but a relatively strong one. Israel needed peace on its southern flank and it needed to gain some purchase within the arab community that might assist in the palestinian problem. Sadat and Egypt offered those possibilities and peace WAS achieved between the two countries. Too bad that the muslim brotherhood got to him. Oddly enough, although Sadat was hailed as a great diplomat throughout the world because of Camp David, he was reviled in the arab world for the same thing. The night he died, over a dozen people were killed in Beirut from bullets falling from the sky that had been shot skyward in celebration for his assassination. Nonetheless, Mubarek was able to maintain the peace between them and, for 30 years, Israel has not had to worry about its southern flank.


Egypt made peace with Israel because they had just had their ass handed to them in a stunning military defeat along with their Arab allies in their little misadventure to "Wipe Israel from the face of the earth."

Not because Sadat was a peace loving guy that only wanted peace.

[maineman]

Egypt made peace with Israel because they had just had their ass handed to them in a stunning military defeat along with their Arab allies in their little misadventure to "Wipe Israel from the face of the earth."

Not because Sadat was a peace loving guy that only wanted peace.

six day war.... 1967....

CampDavid.... 1978

hmmmmmm

[fj1200]

I never said any of those things. A giant chunk of worthless desert was being occupied. Israel's military IS tough and kicks the shit out of opponents routinely. Having said that, Sadat surrendered nothing at Camp David.. he did NOT come to the table with a weak hand, but a relatively strong one. Israel needed peace on its southern flank and it needed to gain some purchase within the arab community that might assist in the palestinian problem. Sadat and Egypt offered those possibilities and peace WAS achieved between the two countries. Too bad that the muslim brotherhood got to him. Oddly enough, although Sadat was hailed as a great diplomat throughout the world because of Camp David, he was reviled in the arab world for the same thing. The night he died, over a dozen people were killed in Beirut from bullets falling from the sky that had been shot skyward in celebration for his assassination. Nonetheless, Mubarek was able to maintain the peace between them and, for 30 years, Israel has not had to worry about its southern flank.

Your position falls apart then. A DMZ between you and a sworn enemy is NOT worthless. Israel had the real position of strength and was able to secure peace because of it.

[maineman]

Your position falls apart then. A DMZ between you and a sworn enemy is NOT worthless. Israel had the real position of strength and was able to secure peace because of it.

Israel traded land for peace. I agree. What I DISAGREE about is that Egypt came whimpering to the table with their tails between their legs. They were NOT "beaten" (RSR's word that I took issue with) NOR did they "SURRENDER" (another of RSR's ridiculous assertions that I took issue with). You seem to want to defend his position, but I have yet to see you do so. And when was the Sinai ever "demilitarized"? :lol: There had been UNTSO observation posts there for decades.

[fj1200]

Israel traded land for peace. I agree. What I DISAGREE about is that Egypt came whimpering to the table with their tails between their legs. They were NOT "beaten" (RSR's word that I took issue with) NOR did they "SURRENDER" (another of RSR's ridiculous assertions that I took issue with). You seem to want to defend his position, but I have yet to see you do so. And when was the Sinai ever "demilitarized"? :lol: There had been UNTSO observation posts there for decades.

You should brush up on your research. :rolleyes:

The main features of the treaty were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and the complete withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the Six-Day War in 1967. Egypt agreed to leave the area demilitarized. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Taba—Rafah straits as international waterways.
Demilitarization of Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty#Demilitarization_of_Sinai)

The land doesn't guarantee the peace, strength does; Something woefully lacking on the Egyptian side. You've stated that Sadat came to the table with a "relatively strong hand", but have not offered specifics, and yet the only thing he really offered them was acceptance and peace. Things I imagine Israel cared very deeply about more than "worthless" desert.

Why would you think I would defend Red's position?

[maineman]

You should brush up on your research. :rolleyes:

Demilitarization of Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty#Demilitarization_of_Sinai)

The land doesn't guarantee the peace, strength does; Something woefully lacking on the Egyptian side. You've stated that Sadat came to the table with a "relatively strong hand", but have not offered specifics, and yet the only thing he really offered them was acceptance and peace. Things I imagine Israel cared very deeply about more than "worthless" desert.

Why would you think I would defend Red's position?

post 87 certainly gives me the opinion that you are supporting RSR's point against mine.

If you really want to suggest that RSR is actually full of shit, then why not grow a set and actually say that?

Sadat came to the table offering Israel an opportunity to achieve peace on his southern flank. Sadat offered the chance to influence palestinians. That was a good deal for Begin and he took it. And Israel was able to realize three decades of peace on its southern flank.

And if Israel didn't think that that was a GOOD deal, why did Begin give up the Sinai to get it? Are they just dumb?

[maineman]

You should brush up on your research. :rolleyes:

Demilitarization of Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty#Demilitarization_of_Sinai)



I think if you go back, you will see that I clearly stated that UNTSO observers were in place in the Sinai to monitor the hostilities there. I know that because my good buddy, George Casey, was an UNTSO observer in the Sinai in 1981-82.

[jimnyc]

If you really want to suggest that RSR, an esteemed board moderator, is actually full of shit, then why not grow a set and actually say that?

Leave the fact that RSR is a staff member out of the thread, it has nothing to do with this debate nor anyone's stance.

[maineman]

Leave the fact that RSR is a staff member out of the thread, it has nothing to do with this debate nor anyone's stance.

it has to do with HIS stance... stand with him or stand against him... your choice. Either he speaks FOR your position or he doesn't.

[jimnyc]

it has to do with HIS stance... stand with him or stand against him... your choice. Either he speaks FOR your position or he doesn't.

Him being staff has NOTHING to do with this thread. I asked ONE thing of you when returning here. If you're going to start already, and then debate with me over it, your time here will be very short once again.

[maineman]

Him being staff has NOTHING to do with this thread. I asked ONE thing of you when returning here. If you're going to start already, and then debate with me over it, your time here will be very short once again.

I could care less who you choose to be staff here...that is all about you and who you feel comfortable with. If you feel comfortable with him, go for it... I have no problem with that... as you know I admire you a great deal... I always have.

[jimnyc]

Drop the staff conversation and get back on TOPIC now...

[maineman]

Israel needs to negotiate with the palestinians about land for peace. If Hamas doesn't agree to recognize Israel, all bets are off.

[NightTrain]

Israel needs to negotiate with the palestinians about land for peace. If Hamas doesn't agree to recognize Israel, all bets are off.

Yes, because those arabs have always been so honorable in keeping their word on land-for-peace deals before.

Pacifism only invites more bloodshed. It's been proven time and again. Every time Israel has withdrawn, they have been rewarded with more attacks.

[NightTrain]

six day war.... 1967....

CampDavid.... 1978

hmmmmmm


Egypt has been at peace with Israel since they got their asses kicked in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Prior to the ass kicking, they were boasting how they were going to annihilate Israel.


The Israelis experienced similar success in the Golan Heights where the Syrian forces were pushed back and Israel re-captured lost land. Using the main road from Tiberias to Damascus, the Israelis got to within 35 miles of the Syrian capital.

On October 24th, a cease-fire was organised by the United Nations. The United Nations sent its own peacekeepers to the highly volatile regions affected by the fighting. Between January and March 1974, Israeli and Egyptian forces disengaged along the Suez Canal region. Here, the Israelis managed to keep control over the strategic Sinai Desert – an area that allowed Israel a buffer to ensure any fighting there did not spill over into Israel itself. In the Golan Heights, 1,200 United Nations troops were sent to keep the peace there in May 1974. They effectively formed a United Nations buffer between Syria and Israel.

The American Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissenger, acted as a peace broker between Egypt and Israel. In September 1975, Egypt and Israel signed an interim agreement which declared their willingness to settle their differences by peaceful means rather than by military. This was to lead to the American sponsored talks at Camp David that followed the 1977 ‘Sadat Initiative’.

You sure know remarkably little despite your claims of being a middle east expert.

[maineman]

Yes, because those arabs have always been so honorable in keeping their word on land-for-peace deals before.

Pacifism only invites more bloodshed. It's been proven time and again. Every time Israel has withdrawn, they have been rewarded with more attacks.

so..the alternative is to quit trying to find a peaceful path?

I disagree.

[maineman]

Egypt has been at peace with Israel since they got their asses kicked. Prior to the ass kicking, they were boasting how they were going to annihilate Israel.

You sure know remarkably little despite your claims of being a middle east expert.

I know that your belief that Egypt came to the table as a beaten opponent surrendering to Israel is not accurate. Let's just leave it at that.

[NightTrain]

It appears that you responded before I was done editing my post. My fault.

It was the Yom Kippur war that drove Egypt to the peaceful stance they have today, not the '67 Six Day War.

[maineman]

It appears that you responded before I was done editing my post. My fault.

It was the Yom Kippur war that drove Egypt to the peaceful stance they have today, not the '67 Six Day War.

I'm done with you. you want to insult me and my knowledge of the middle east. that's cool.

go for it, but don't expect me to play along.

[NightTrain]

I'm done with you. you want to insult me and my knowledge of the middle east. that's cool.

go for it, but don't expect me to play along.



If you had gotten it right, I would have slapped you on the back and given you an Attaboy.

Now you are better informed as to why Egypt enjoys peace with Israel today.

You're welcome.

[maineman]

If you had gotten it right, I would have slapped you on the back and given you an Attaboy.

Now you are better informed as to why Egypt enjoys peace with Israel today.

You're welcome.

I never thanked you, but I would do so if you had offered me any scrid of information that I did not already know. Egypt and Israel both went to Camp David with something to gain. They both gained something. Egypt did NOT come to the table with its tail between its legs.. it did not come surrendering anything. They got the Sinai back. If Israel did not think it was it in its best interests to do so, Carter could not have gotten them do agree to it.

[NightTrain]

I never thanked you, but I would do so if you had offered me any scrid of information that I did not already know. Egypt and Israel both went to Camp David with something to gain. They both gained something. Egypt did NOT come to the table with its tail between its legs.. it did not come surrendering anything. They got the Sinai back. If Israel did not think it was it in its best interests to do so, Carter could not have gotten them do agree to it.


I see.

So, can you tell me then, what occurred to make Egypt go from boasting to the world that they were going to "Wipe Israel from the face of the earth" to eagerly wanting peace with Israel?

[maineman]

I see.

So, can you tell me then, what occurred to make Egypt go from boasting to the world that they were going to "Wipe Israel from the face of the earth" to eagerly wanting peace with Israel?

the fact that they KNEW that Israel really WANTED peace with them, and that Israel would be willing to give back the Sinai in exchange for that peace.

Clearly...they were right.

does that indicate that Egypt came to the table "Beaten" and ready to "surrender" ANY-fucking- thing?

[maineman]

:: crickets chirping ::

[maineman]

:: yawn:: I've got a book I need to finish... g'nite.

[NightTrain]

the fact that they KNEW that Israel really WANTED peace with them, and that Israel would be willing to give back the Sinai in exchange for that peace.

Clearly...they were right.

does that indicate that Egypt came to the table "Beaten" and ready to "surrender" ANY-fucking- thing?


Here's a Fun Fact : Israel always wanted peace with Egypt. It was your favorite peeps, the Egyptians who created the entire conflict.

1) Egypt wanted to annihilate Israel and said so publicly.

2) Israel beat the holy hell out of Egypt in an efficient businesslike manner, stopping short of assaulting Cairo due to the USSR warning the USA that they would have to step in if Cairo fell and the fact that Israel didn't want it anyway. Besides, they had other nations like Syria to beat up next.

3) Israel captured large amount of Egypt's land including the Suez Canal.

4) Egypt, finally realizing they are not capable of matching Israel militarily even allied with several other countries, decided to make peace in exchange for a large chunk of land back.

5) It was the ass kicking and the resulting loss of the Sinai that drove Egypt to the peace table to try and get it back.

There are lots of websites devoted to this fascinating bit of history, I would suggest you read a few of them that aren't authored by Arabs.

I think it's laughable that you somehow think that the defeat Egypt suffered at the hands of Israel didn't have anything to do with their 180 degree change of direction.

[red states rule]

Great article that shows Pres Bungle's "plan" will cause more war




snip

The "1967 borders" are an invitation to catastrophe, just as the Peace of Versailles led to Hitler and World War II. Woodrow Wilson came back from Versailles announcing Peace Forever to a skeptical American public. But the Germans and the French (and V.I. Lenin) knew better. They knew there would be another war.

Like Woodrow Wilson, Obama yearns for that grandstanding photo-op. This whole administration is driven by one Himalayan ego. Everything is done to feed Obama's fragile self-esteem. Hosni Mubarak was brought down, and a 30-year Egypt-Israeli peace treaty was put in danger to feed Obama's ego. Libya was attacked (but not Iran) to stop what was fast turning into an all-consuming firestorm in the Arab political world.

Well, it looks like it's time for Israel to feed Obama's all-devouring ego.

It's worth noticing that Israel became independent in 1948, the same year as Pakistan and India, after the Partition of British India led to some 4 million deaths in Muslim-Hindu riots.

Has the India-Pakistan partition led to peace? After all, in that huge Indian subcontinent there is plenty of room for two great nations to live in peace. The United States and Canada have done it for two centuries.

But not India and Pakistan. They have carried on two major wars since 1948, along with endless terrorist attacks from Muslim Pakistan to majority-Hindu India. The Kashmir is a hot spot for terrorism just like Jerusalem and the West Bank. Pakistan and India have seen assassinations, riots and bombings over disputed holy places, and a nuclear arms race that is now accelerating on the Pakistani side. Pakistan is quickly building a new military-grade nuclear plant, perhaps to supply bombs for the Sunni Arab nations when Iran gets its new toy for the Return of the Mahdi.

You might remember that Pakistan is the country that harbored Osama Bin Laden for seven years.

It's a very peace-loving nation.

This is the first Napoleonic administration in American history. Obama stars in a Cult of Personality, just like Lenin and Mao, as our degraded media demonstrated so well when Osama Bin Laden was assassinated by a SEAL Team, and Obamaparte insisted on hogging all the credit.

To force Obama's wacky ideas on a reluctant world, they routinely use Chicago thuggery. How to improve medical care for 300 million Americans? Let Obama take it over! How to get us out of the Great Recession? By Gum, just give Our Hero fourteen trillion dollars and watch him boogie!

On and on it goes. But I haven't yet met a single liberal who understands what's really happening. Once they get trapped in their delusional system they can't seem find a way out.

Obama keeps ego-tripping about heart-rendingly difficult questions that have baffled far wiser people for centuries. The One really thinks he can solve it all with a snap of the fingers, and the moronic media always sing the Hallelujah Chorus. No matter what actually happens.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/obamas_borders_caused_60_years.html

[maineman]

I think it's laughable that you somehow think that the defeat Egypt suffered at the hands of Israel didn't have anything to do with their 180 degree change of direction.

I think it is laughable - in an annoying sort of way - that you seem to fucking think you KNOW what I think and put fucking words in my mouth. I have NEVER said that the loss of the Sinai "didn't have anything to do" with Egypt coming to Camp David.

I have only and ever said that I disagreed with RSR's idiotic assertion that the ONLY way peace happens in the middle east is when one side is "beaten" and "surrenders".

[fj1200]

post 87 certainly gives me the opinion that you are supporting RSR's point against mine.

If you really want to suggest that RSR is actually full of shit, then why not grow a set and actually say that?

I'm sorry that you got the impression that I wanted to say that Red is full of S'. :rolleyes: He'll argue his position I'll argue mine which seems to have taken the road that yours' is full of excrement.


Sadat came to the table offering Israel an opportunity to achieve peace on his southern flank. Sadat offered the chance to influence palestinians. That was a good deal for Begin and he took it. And Israel was able to realize three decades of peace on its southern flank.

Yup, the only strength that he had.


And if Israel didn't think that that was a GOOD deal, why did Begin give up the Sinai to get it? Are they just dumb?

Not sure why you're trying to put words in my mouth. Billions in military aid didn't hurt either. Do you think that a peace treaty would have been signed without outside influence?


I think if you go back, you will see that I clearly stated that UNTSO observers were in place in the Sinai to monitor the hostilities there. I know that because my good buddy, George Casey, was an UNTSO observer in the Sinai in 1981-82.

Ooooooooooohhhhh, I be that was a cherry post to nab.


Israel needs to negotiate with the palestinians about land for peace. If Hamas doesn't agree to recognize Israel, all bets are off.

Maybe your confused by land coming first in the phrase. Offering land will not provide peace, when they have peace with someone the Palestinians the land will follow.

[fj1200]

the fact that they KNEW that Israel really WANTED peace with them, and that Israel would be willing to give back the Sinai in exchange for that peace.

Clearly...they were right.

Granted, they also knew that they had no military "hand."*


does that indicate that Egypt came to the table "Beaten" and ready to "surrender" ANY-fucking- thing?

Sadat surrendered much.

[maineman]

Granted, they also knew that they had no military "hand."*



Sadat surrendered much.

if by "surrendered much" you mean that he got the Sinai peninsula back, then I guess you are right.


and regarding the UNSTO assignment... George got to live in Cairo which was indeed a sweet gig... I got to live in Nahariya, Israel for half my tour and in Beirut for the other half. Those were both sweet gigs as well...;)

[fj1200]

if by "surrendered much" you mean that he got the Sinai peninsula back, then I guess you are right.

I specifically said Sadat.


Too bad that the muslim brotherhood got to him. Oddly enough, although Sadat was hailed as a great diplomat throughout the world because of Camp David, he was reviled in the arab world for the same thing. The night he died...

Israel gained... Egypt gained... that is the heart of compromise. Egypt certainly didn't gain because they had demonstrated military strength over Israel.

[maineman]

I specifically said Sadat.

I know you did... and I said that if you think getting the Sinai back is surrendering much, then your initial statement is correct.




Israel gained... Egypt gained... that is the heart of compromise. Egypt certainly didn't gain because they had demonstrated military strength over Israel.

and now... if you could find ONE SINGLE SOLITARY QUOTE from me that EVER said that it was Egypt's demonstrated MILITARY strength over Israel that gained them anything at Camp David, that would be real nice.

[fj1200]

I know you did... and I said that if you think getting the Sinai back is surrendering much, then your initial statement is correct.

You have enough trouble with your statements, don't try to make mine up for me.


and now... if you could find ONE SINGLE SOLITARY QUOTE from me that EVER said that it was Egypt's demonstrated MILITARY strength over Israel that gained them anything at Camp David, that would be real nice.

It's my position that strength leads to peace which allows Israel to concede land.

I'm still waiting for that listing of strengths you keep claiming Egypt had.

[maineman]

You have enough trouble with your statements, don't try to make mine up for me.

I could have sworn that you wrote, "Sadat surrendered much" (in post #121)

And I repeat that if surrendering much means getting back a whole chunk of territory, then your statement is correct.




It's my position that strength leads to peace which allows Israel to concede land.

I'm still waiting for that listing of strengths you keep claiming Egypt had.

again, the "strength" that Egypt brought to the table was their brave willingness to be the first arab nation that made peace with Israel and therefore, the first of Israel's neighbors who would not maintain a threatening posture on their shared border. And because of that "strength" Egypt and Sadat ended up "surrendering" themselves back into ownership of the Sinai peninsula. ;)

[NightTrain]

again, the "strength" that Egypt brought to the table was their brave willingness to be the first arab nation that made peace with Israel and therefore, the first of Israel's neighbors who would not maintain a threatening posture on their shared border. And because of that "strength" Egypt and Sadat ended up "surrendering" themselves back into ownership of the Sinai peninsula. ;)


Emmmm... okay.

If by "Bravely" going to the negotiation table to sign a treaty to get their land back the only way possible, I guess you can believe that.

To anyone else that looks at the facts of what happened, it is abundantly clear that Egypt went to the table and signed a peace treaty because they looked around and said, "Holy shit! We really got our asses kicked and we need that land back no matter the cost!"

It wasn't brave, it wasn't noble, it wasn't because the Egyptian leaders that had incredibly bungled the entire affair suddenly had a change of heart and were now peaceful magnanimous angels.

They did the only thing they could to get their land back after Israel took it by force - signed a peace treaty with Israel.

RSR is correct. The event that drove Egypt to the peace treaty was a stunning military defeat that included a large loss of land. The land was the carrot used to secure peace that the Israelis had wanted all along.

[fj1200]

I could have sworn that you wrote, "Sadat surrendered much" (in post #121)

He did, he died prematurely, was reviled in the Arab world, and Egypt was kicked out of the Arab league; was your list incorrect/incomplete?


And I repeat that if surrendering much means getting back a whole chunk of territory, then your statement is correct.

I told you my position and you still botch it.


again, the "strength" that Egypt brought to the table was their brave willingness to be the first arab nation that made peace with Israel and therefore, the first of Israel's neighbors who would not maintain a threatening posture on their shared border. And because of that "strength" Egypt and Sadat ended up "surrendering" themselves back into ownership of the Sinai peninsula. ;)

Strength through weakness. Interesting.

[LuvRPgrl]

Emmmm... okay.

If by "Bravely" going to the negotiation table to sign a treaty to get their land back the only way possible, I guess you can believe that.

To anyone else that looks at the facts of what happened, it is abundantly clear that Egypt went to the table and signed a peace treaty because they looked around and said, "Holy shit! We really got our asses kicked and we need that land back no matter the cost!"

It wasn't brave, it wasn't noble, it wasn't because the Egyptian leaders that had incredibly bungled the entire affair suddenly had a change of heart and were now peaceful magnanimous angels.

They did the only thing they could to get their land back after Israel took it by force - signed a peace treaty with Israel.

RSR is correct. The event that drove Egypt to the peace treaty was a stunning military defeat that included a large loss of land. The land was the carrot used to secure peace that the Israelis had wanted all along.

funny how the only countries Israel has fights with are the ones that attack her first.

But anyways, Im gonna suggest to obama that we go back to the borders of 1942

[maineman]

Emmmm... okay.

If by "Bravely" going to the negotiation table to sign a treaty to get their land back the only way possible, I guess you can believe that.

To anyone else that looks at the facts of what happened, it is abundantly clear that Egypt went to the table and signed a peace treaty because they looked around and said, "Holy shit! We really got our asses kicked and we need that land back no matter the cost!"

It wasn't brave, it wasn't noble, it wasn't because the Egyptian leaders that had incredibly bungled the entire affair suddenly had a change of heart and were now peaceful magnanimous angels.

They did the only thing they could to get their land back after Israel took it by force - signed a peace treaty with Israel.

RSR is correct. The event that drove Egypt to the peace treaty was a stunning military defeat that included a large loss of land. The land was the carrot used to secure peace that the Israelis had wanted all along.

spoken like someone who has never driven through the Sinai. If the Sinai were teeming with natural resources like the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula, or was home to millions of Egyptians displaced in the war, then I can imagine that Egypt would have said, HOLY SHIT... We simply MUST get that land back! It is KEY to our economic survival. That is not the case. The war was fought by an alliance of Arab nations, and lost by that same alliance. The Sinai was lost in 1967. If the loss of the Sinai and the HOLY SHIT WE GOTTA GET OUR LAND BACK mentality had driven Egypt to the bargaining table, why did they wait eleven years? Clearly, the desperate desire to reclaim their land was not as desperate as you would have us believe. And again.... will someone tell me what Sadat "surrendered" at Camp David? He signed a peace treaty and got an enormous - albeit worthless - chunk of land. Folks who are beaten and surrender usually are the ones who walk away having given up something. Germany at the end of WWI comes to mind. To suggest that Egypt was beaten and surrendered and THAT is why they negotiated peace with Israel eleven years after losing the six day war is just plain silly.

[Abbey Marie]

President Obama made a speech yesterday, in which he announced a bizarre demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders and assume the stance where her enemies had attacked her with impunity again and again.
...
Obama's speech, of course, breaks a promise made to Israel by George Bush, that Israel would never be asked to go back to its pre-1967 borders. Bush at least realized that Israel's very existence was at stake. Too bad Obama doesn't think so.
...
--------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_mideast


Unfortunately, I don't think this is bizarre for Obama. In fact, I am not at all surprised. Nor do I think for a minute that Prez Hussein is unaware what this would do to Israel's existence.

[Kathianne]

In '67 Egypt believed that with the joining of Arab forces they could wipe out Israel. They figured wrong, Egypt lost 80 percent of its military equipment, 10,000 soldiers and 1,500 officers killed, 5,000 soldiers and 500 officers captured,[51] and 20,000 wounded.

By the late 70's they came to the conclusion that if their people were to move forward, war would have to cease being a constant threat. So they made peace with Israel. For that agreement, they got land back. It never was Israel that wanted war.

[maineman]

In '67 Egypt believed that with the joining of Arab forces they could wipe out Israel. They figured wrong, Egypt lost 80 percent of its military equipment, 10,000 soldiers and 1,500 officers killed, 5,000 soldiers and 500 officers captured,[51] and 20,000 wounded.

By the late 70's they came to the conclusion that if their people were to move forward, war would have to cease being a constant threat. So they made peace with Israel. For that agreement, they got land back. It never was Israel that wanted war.

Egypt felt that war with Israel was a constant threat by the late 70's? WHy would Egypt feel that if, as you say, Israel never wanted war?

[NightTrain]

spoken like someone who has never driven through the Sinai. If the Sinai were teeming with natural resources like the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula, or was home to millions of Egyptians displaced in the war, then I can imagine that Egypt would have said, HOLY SHIT... We simply MUST get that land back! It is KEY to our economic survival. That is not the case. The war was fought by an alliance of Arab nations, and lost by that same alliance. The Sinai was lost in 1967. If the loss of the Sinai and the HOLY SHIT WE GOTTA GET OUR LAND BACK mentality had driven Egypt to the bargaining table, why did they wait eleven years? Clearly, the desperate desire to reclaim their land was not as desperate as you would have us believe. And again.... will someone tell me what Sadat "surrendered" at Camp David? He signed a peace treaty and got an enormous - albeit worthless - chunk of land. Folks who are beaten and surrender usually are the ones who walk away having given up something. Germany at the end of WWI comes to mind. To suggest that Egypt was beaten and surrendered and THAT is why they negotiated peace with Israel eleven years after losing the six day war is just plain silly.

For someone who claims to be a military veteran, you are demonstrating remarkably little understanding of the strategic importance of the Sinai as a buffer zone with the Suez Canal attached to it.

You need to research the '73 Yom Kippur debacle, not just the 6 Day War. You're either being obtuse or you are woefully ignorant of the facts.

[maineman]

For someone who claims to be a military veteran, you are demonstrating remarkably little understanding of the strategic importance of the Sinai as a buffer zone with the Suez Canal attached to it.

You need to research the '73 Yom Kippur debacle, not just the 6 Day War. You're either being obtuse or you are woefully ignorant of the facts.


I understand that the Sinai is not completely WORTHLESS... but, it ain't worth very much... and Egypt certainly didn't need it as a buffer from Israel... there is a much better case to be made that Israel needed it as a buffer against Egypt. Nothing in Egypt fits in even the most ardent zionist's definition of "from Dan to Beersheba".

I have studied both conflicts at length. You really should stop trying to tell me what you think I need to do. I really don't like condescending pricks trying to lecture me.

The fact remains... if the Sinai were so "HOLY SHIT WE'VE GOT TO GET OUR LAND BACK NOW AND AT ANY COST", why did it take eleven years for Egypt to get to Camp David? And what, exactly, was this "AT ANY COST" that Sadat paid to get his land back? If he was beaten and surrendering, why did he walk away from the table with more than he sat down with?

[Kathianne]

Egypt felt that war with Israel was a constant threat by the late 70's? WHy would Egypt feel that if, as you say, Israel never wanted war?

Hmm, suicide bombings, missiles from those Egypt was allied with? d'oh.

[fj1200]

If he was beaten and surrendering, why did he walk away from the table with more than he sat down with?

Israel walked away with peace, security, and acceptance. More valuable to them than "worthless desert."

[NightTrain]

I understand that the Sinai is not completely WORTHLESS... but, it ain't worth very much... and Egypt certainly didn't need it as a buffer from Israel... there is a much better case to be made that Israel needed it as a buffer against Egypt. Nothing in Egypt fits in even the most ardent zionist's definition of "from Dan to Beersheba".

I have studied both conflicts at length. You really should stop trying to tell me what you think I need to do. I really don't like condescending pricks trying to lecture me.

The fact remains... if the Sinai were so "HOLY SHIT WE'VE GOT TO GET OUR LAND BACK NOW AND AT ANY COST", why did it take eleven years for Egypt to get to Camp David? And what, exactly, was this "AT ANY COST" that Sadat paid to get his land back? If he was beaten and surrendering, why did he walk away from the table with more than he sat down with?

It didn't take 11 years. They were negotiating immediately after Egypt got pummeled in 1973 with cease fire talks which led to more permanent treaties.

Still certain of your facts? :laugh2:

[maineman]

Hmm, suicide bombings, missiles from those Egypt was allied with? d'oh.

so Israel would go to war with Egypt because palestinians were blowing themselves up in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? What missiles are you talking about? and what allies of Egypt were shooting them? I don't think there is any historical basis to suggest that Egypt went to Camp David because they felt that Israel would invade any moment if they failed to do so.

d'oh.

[maineman]

It didn't take 11 years. They were negotiating immediately after Egypt got pummeled in 1973 with cease fire talks which led to more permanent treaties.

Still certain of your facts? :laugh2:

UNSCR 242 was older than that. The fact remains that the west has been trying to get the arabs and the jews to make peace with one another for decades. It took Sadat and Begin, and then Carter, to bring the first treaty to fruition. So... I notice that you failed to answer any of my questions. WHy not go back and try again.

[NightTrain]

UNSCR 242 was older than that. The fact remains that the west has been trying to get the arabs and the jews to make peace with one another for decades. It took Sadat and Begin, and then Carter, to bring the first treaty to fruition. So... I notice that you failed to answer any of my questions. WHy not go back and try again.


Wrong again. It took a humiliating military defeat in 1973 to bring about peace, as I have outlined countless times to you.

Obtuse much?

[maineman]

so... eleven years after losing the Sinai peninsula, Egypt, beaten, and surrendering, comes crawling to Camp David where it is made to pay an enormous price. It is forced to take back the Sinai and it is forced to accept billions and billions of dollars in American foreign aid and military assistance.

How did they ever manage to pay for all that? the cost was so high.

[NightTrain]

so... eleven years after losing the Sinai peninsula, Egypt, beaten, and surrendering, comes crawling to Camp David where it is made to pay an enormous price. It is forced to take back the Sinai and it is forced to accept billions and billions of dollars in American foreign aid and military assistance.

How did they ever manage to pay for all that? the cost was so high.

Yeah. That's exactly what happened. They sure as hell didn't swagger into negotiations as the victorious military power.

After the '73 beating it was abundantly clear that they weren't going to retake the Sinai by force, so playing nice was the only option.

Sure, we threw in a few billion, so what? The point remains that they weren't going to be peaceful until they were summarily defeated in '73 and that's when the peace process started.

[maineman]

Yeah. That's exactly what happened. They sure as hell didn't swagger into negotiations as the victorious military power.

After the '73 beating it was abundantly clear that they weren't going to retake the Sinai by force, so playing nice was the only option.

Sure, we threw in a few billion, so what? The point remains that they weren't going to be peaceful until they were summarily defeated in '73 and that's when the peace process started.


Why are you so fucking hyperbolic??? I have never said they swaggered into the table. I merely pointed out that they did not come crawling to the table as a beaten dog surrendering to Israel.... willing to pay whatever price was necessary to get their precious incredibly valuable Sinai peninsula back. They went into the negotiations as an equal partner. They had something that Israel wanted and Israel and the US had somethings that THEY wanted.

and again... can you tell me what this heavy price was that Egypt paid at Camp David for peace with Israel?

[NightTrain]

Why are you so fucking hyperbolic??? I have never said they swaggered into the table. I merely pointed out that they did not come crawling to the table as a beaten dog surrendering to Israel.... willing to pay whatever price was necessary to get their precious incredibly valuable Sinai peninsula back. They went into the negotiations as an equal partner. They had something that Israel wanted and Israel and the US had somethings that THEY wanted.

and again... can you tell me what this heavy price was that Egypt paid at Camp David for peace with Israel?

Israel's stance hadn't changed; they still only wanted peace.

Egypt was a whipped cur. The only difference between 1972 and 1973 was an ass kicking, nothing else had changed except a bunch of sheepish generals making excuses for their incompetence.

Equal partner... damn that's funny! Germany, Italy and Japan were equal partners too, back in the '40s. They had something we wanted, too, right? Peace? LOL

[maineman]

Israel's stance hadn't changed; they still only wanted peace.

Egypt was a whipped cur. The only difference between 1972 and 1973 was an ass kicking, nothing else had changed except a bunch of sheepish generals making excuses for their incompetence.

Equal partner... damn that's funny! Germany, Italy and Japan were equal partners too, back in the '40s. They had something we wanted, too, right? Peace? LOL


again... what was the heavy price we made Eqypt pay for surrendering like a whipped cur at Camp David?:laugh2:

[NightTrain]

again... what was the heavy price we made Eqypt pay for surrendering like a whipped cur at Camp David?:laugh2:

A massive loss of face in the eyes of the rest of the muslim world. Signing a peace treaty with Israel, formally acknowledging Israel's existence as an independent State.

There were howls of outrage all around the Middle East as the ink dried, it was a nice piece of work.

[maineman]

your words:


it is abundantly clear that Egypt went to the table and signed a peace treaty because they looked around and said, "Holy shit! We really got our asses kicked and we need that land back no matter the cost!"


so please tell me what was this enormous cost they paid?

From my perspective, they paid by having the Sinai peninsula given back to them and by having billions and billions of foreign and military aid given to them by the US that has continued unabated from that day to this.

If that is what countries have to PAY when then crawl on their bellies and surrender, I would think many more countries would opt for defeat under such terms ;)

[maineman]

A massive loss of face in the eyes of the rest of the muslim world. Signing a peace treaty with Israel, formally acknowledging Israel's existence as an independent State.

There were howls of outrage all around the Middle East as the ink dried, it was a nice piece of work.

and getting their precious Sinai was worth that? :laugh2: Why did Jordan sign a similar treaty fifteen years later? were they too, beaten curs crawling to the table? I guess they were slower crawlers... what price did Jordan pay for IT'S surrender to Israel?

[red states rule]

In '67 Egypt believed that with the joining of Arab forces they could wipe out Israel. They figured wrong, Egypt lost 80 percent of its military equipment, 10,000 soldiers and 1,500 officers killed, 5,000 soldiers and 500 officers captured,[51] and 20,000 wounded.

By the late 70's they came to the conclusion that if their people were to move forward, war would have to cease being a constant threat. So they made peace with Israel. For that agreement, they got land back. It never was Israel that wanted war.

So a peace treaty was signed AFTER one side was beaten and decided not to continue fighting?

I recall someone posting that and was laughed at by another poster

Damn, that is interesting Kat.

[NightTrain]

and getting their precious Sinai was worth that? :laugh2: Why did Jordan sign a similar treaty fifteen years later? were they too, beaten curs crawling to the table? I guess they were slower crawlers... what price did Jordan pay for IT'S surrender to Israel?

Apparently so. They chose the only option to regain their land.

Plus, the fact that they jumped at the "Free Money" we offered them, and they've not been troublemakers ever since. Every now and then they get a tug on that hook from us to remind them of the "Free Money" they're getting, and they do what we want.

Brilliant, really.

[maineman]

Apparently so. They chose the only option to regain their land.

Plus, the fact that they jumped at the "Free Money" we offered them, and they've not been troublemakers ever since. Every now and then they get a tug on that hook from us to remind them of the "Free Money" they're getting, and they do what we want.

Brilliant, really.

yeah... crawl like a dog to the table and be forced to take back a giant chunk of land and boatloads of cash for decades and decades. that'll show 'em! :laugh:

[NightTrain]

yeah... crawl like a dog to the table and be forced to take back a giant chunk of land and boatloads of cash for decades and decades. that'll show 'em! :laugh:

Oh, I'm quite sure they would have preferred to retake the Sinai back by force, but as we can see by your history lesson, that didn't quite pan out, did it?

So they were ridiculed and insulted by the rest of the muslim world, but they got their desert back and have been on the hook for "Free Money" ever since.

It worked out nicely, all it took was a good old fashioned ass kicking to get the ball rolling.

[maineman]

Oh, I'm quite sure they would have preferred to retake the Sinai back by force, but as we can see by your history lesson, that didn't quite pan out, did it?

So they were ridiculed and insulted by the rest of the muslim world, but they got their desert back and have been on the hook for "Free Money" ever since.

It worked out nicely, all it took was a good old fashioned ass kicking to get the ball rolling.

yeah... being forced to take back a huge piece of real estate and billions of billions of dollars. That is a HUGE price to pay. good point.

[NightTrain]

yeah... being forced to take back a huge piece of real estate and billions of billions of dollars. That is a HUGE price to pay. good point.

Thank you.


And, You're Welcome.

[LuvRPgrl]

wow, you guys sure like to argue !!:laugh2:

[maineman]

Thank you.


And, You're Welcome.

don't you wonder why EVERYBODY doesn't lose wars when those are the HEAVY PRICES they have to pay for doing so? I can't imagine why every country on the planet isn't lining up to crawl on its belly to Camp David.

[LuvRPgrl]

yeah... crawl like a dog to the table and be forced to take back a giant chunk of land and boatloads of cash for decades and decades. that'll show 'em! :laugh:

Answer your own question, what did Egypt give up?
Cuz if they gave up nothing, then we wouldn't have needed them at camp david, Israel could have simply handed Sinai back to them, and we could have told them, we will give you billions in aid every year.

So, answer your own question, what did they give up?

[NightTrain]

don't you wonder why EVERYBODY doesn't lose wars when those are the HEAVY PRICES they have to pay for doing so? I can't imagine why every country on the planet isn't lining up to crawl on its belly to Camp David.

The Egyptian leader responsible for signing the treaty lost his life. Seems to me he paid the heaviest price possible.

[maineman]

Answer your own question, what did Egypt give up?
Cuz if they gave up nothing, then we wouldn't have needed them at camp david, Israel could have simply handed Sinai back to them, and we could have told them, we will give you billions in aid every year.

So, answer your own question, what did they give up?

that is interesting... usually... on message boards, when people ask questions, other members answer those questions. If I wanted to answer my own question, why do you think I would have taken the time to type it out on a message board? Why don't YOU try to answer it... that would be REALLY interesting. More interesting than a stack of pesos on a beer bottle at Mama Jolo's.

[maineman]

The Egyptian leader responsible for signing the treaty lost his life. Seems to me he paid the heaviest price possible.

what price did Egypt pay? And do you think that Sadat went to Camp David with his life written on a check payable to Carter and Begin?

[NightTrain]

what price did Egypt pay?

Already answered. Review.


And do you think that Sadat went to Camp David with his life written on a check payable to Carter and Begin?

I don't think he realized it, but his fate was sealed as soon as word got out. Muslims generally aren't a very tolerant Hopey/Changey kind of people in that neck of the woods.

[red states rule]

Already answered. Review.



I don't think he realized it, but his fate was sealed as soon as word got out. Muslims generally aren't a very tolerant Hopey/Changey kind of people in that neck of the woods.

Muslims are alot like liberals. They go thru life being pissed off and looking for things to be offended over

Remind you of any libs here NT? :laugh2:

[NightTrain]

Muslims are alot like liberals. They go thru life being pissed off and looking for things to be offended over

Remind you of any libs here NT? :laugh2:

Just a couple!

[maineman]

Already answered. Review.

so they PAID to be forced to take a shitload of land, and billions of dollars for decades, and they had to have other muslims be upset with them. Now that is REALLY sticking it to the crawling cur who came to the table surrendering. got it


I don't think he realized it, but his fate was sealed as soon as word got out. Muslims generally aren't a very tolerant Hopey/Changey kind of people in that neck of the woods.

and Rabin didn't know it and JFK didn't know it and Bhutto didn't know it, and every leader who has ever been assassinated didn't know it. that doesn't mean that Egypt crawled to the table beaten and surrendering.

[red states rule]

so they PAID to be forced to take a shitload of land, and billions of dollars for decades, and they had to have other muslims be upset with them. Now that is REALLY sticking it to the crawling cur who came to the table surrendering. got it



and Rabin didn't know it and JFK didn't know it and Bhutto didn't know it, and every leader who has ever been assassinated didn't know it. that doesn't mean that Egypt crawled to the table beaten and surrendering.

Generosity comes in many forms. Jim showed his generosity by allowing MM to back for like the 4th time

and everytime MM posts on his knowledge and experience he shows his generosity by giving away his ignorance

[NightTrain]

so they PAID to be forced to take a shitload of land, and billions of dollars for decades, and they had to have other muslims be upset with them. Now that is REALLY sticking it to the crawling cur who came to the table surrendering. got it



That's certainly a shitty tone to adopt with me when all I've done is try to educate you out of the goodness of my heart.

You have part of the general storyline, I suppose I've failed miserably if that's all you took away from my efforts to explain things to you. I really don't know how I could have been more clear other than yelling in caps and using the bold function. That's not really my style, though.

All I can do is suggest that you review the entire thread, as quite a few other esteemed & knowledgeable members chimed in and explained key points succinctly to you as well.

[fj1200]

Obtuse much?

Definitely obtuse.

[red states rule]

That's certainly a shitty tone to adopt with me when all I've done is try to educate you out of the goodness of my heart.

You have part of the general storyline, I suppose I've failed miserably if that's all you took away from my efforts to explain things to you. I really don't know how I could have been more clear other than yelling in caps and using the bold function. That's not really my style, though.

All I can do is suggest that you review the entire thread, as quite a few other esteemed & knowledgeable members chimed in and explained key points succinctly to you as well.

NT remember what is says in the Bible

"Go from the presence of the foolish man, When thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."

In oither words don't waste your time arguing with an idiot

[fj1200]

I, for one, think that Israel needs to contemplate the geopolitical forces that are in play as a result of the arab spring... they need to make peace with their neighbors, and if giving back land that they took in war is a way to make that peace, then that, in the long run, will be a good thing for Israel and a good thing for the USA.

Resetting for a second and going back to your first post in the thread, based on your later posts would you say that giving back the Sinai is the event that made the peace?

[jimnyc]

That's certainly a shitty tone to adopt with me when all I've done is try to educate you out of the goodness of my heart.

Not entering this debate as I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject. But want you to know I am stealing and saving this absolutely hilarious line. It will come in handy when I'm done beating my head into the pavement with truthm.... I mean certain idiots I won't mention! :coffee:

[red states rule]

Not entering this debate as I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject. But want you to know I am stealing and saving this absolutely hilarious line. It will come in handy when I'm done beating my head into the pavement with truthm.... I mean certain idiots I won't mention! :coffee:

At least you admit you are not very knowledgeable on the topic Jim

Now if only the one person who is CONSTANTLY telling us how knowledgeable on this topic would admit the same

[Kathianne]

It's obvious to all that maineman, manfrommaine, virgil, iknowmorethananyoneelse, ivebeentothesinai, ivebeentothesinaiifyouhaventyourignorantofallyousp eak, ivewornabluehelmet, ivewornabluehelmetandamsuperiorandaprick, ivelegionsofsailorsthathathatemebecauseimsuperiora ndaprickandhaventaproblemwithbeingone, imaprickbutsinceivebeentothemiddleeastyouareanigno ranttoolthatshouldshutthefuckup sees no redeeming value in Israel. Like Obama he thinks they should just give up land. Unlike Obama, at least from what is obvious, because of his experiences he does know this wouldn't bring about anything other than the annihilation of Israel. He's cool with that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html


What Obama did to Israel
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 26

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.

It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.

For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”...

Read the whole thing. The 'superior in his own mind' poster knows this, perhaps better than Kruthammer.

[red states rule]

It's obvious to all that maineman, manfrommaine, virgil, iknowmorethananyoneelse, ivebeentothesinai, ivebeentothesinaiifyouhaventyourignorantofallyousp eak, ivewornabluehelmet, ivewornabluehelmetandamsuperiorandaprick, ivelegionsofsailorsthathathatemebecauseimsuperiora ndaprickandhaventaproblemwithbeingone, imaprickbutsinceivebeentothemiddleeastyouareanigno ranttoolthatshouldshutthefuckup sees no redeeming value in Israel. Like Obama he thinks they should just give up land. Unlike Obama, at least from what is obvious, because of his experiences he does know this wouldn't bring about anything other than the annihilation of Israel. He's cool with that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html



Read the whole thing. The 'superior in his own mind' poster knows this, perhaps better than Kruthammer.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kathianne again.

Spot on Kat!!

[maineman]

That's certainly a shitty tone to adopt with me when all I've done is try to educate you out of the goodness of my heart.

You have part of the general storyline, I suppose I've failed miserably if that's all you took away from my efforts to explain things to you. I really don't know how I could have been more clear other than yelling in caps and using the bold function. That's not really my style, though.

All I can do is suggest that you review the entire thread, as quite a few other esteemed & knowledgeable members chimed in and explained key points succinctly to you as well.

look NT... I understand that you are not ignorant about the middle east... neither am I. I know that what happened at Camp David was not Egypt crawling on their belly like a wounded dog, begging for anything. THey came knowing that Israel wanted peace, and they wanted peace, and they walked away from that table with the Sinai and with billions of dollars from us that they have received every year since that day.... They got a pretty goddamned sweet deal... a whole shitload of land and a boatload of cash in perpetuity. That is NOT a situation where one party came to the table beaten and surrendering. That is my only point.

[Kathianne]

look NT... I understand that you are not ignorant about the middle east... neither am I. I know that what happened at Camp David was not Egypt crawling on their belly like a wounded dog, begging for anything. THey came knowing that Israel wanted peace, and they wanted peace, and they walked away from that table with the Sinai and with billions of dollars from us that they have received every year since that day.... They got a pretty goddamned sweet deal... a whole shitload of land and a boatload of cash in perpetuity. That is NOT a situation where one party came to the table beaten and surrendering. That is my only point.

Yeah, because Israel, like the US wanted to give peacemaker a sweet deal. They'd do the same for Palestinians, better than the Peel Commission even; problem is the Palestinians aren't looking for a state, but the annihilation of the Jews.

[maineman]

It's obvious to all that maineman, manfrommaine, virgil, iknowmorethananyoneelse, ivebeentothesinai, ivebeentothesinaiifyouhaventyourignorantofallyousp eak, ivewornabluehelmet, ivewornabluehelmetandamsuperiorandaprick, ivelegionsofsailorsthathathatemebecauseimsuperiora ndaprickandhaventaproblemwithbeingone, imaprickbutsinceivebeentothemiddleeastyouareanigno ranttoolthatshouldshutthefuckup sees no redeeming value in Israel. Like Obama he thinks they should just give up land. Unlike Obama, at least from what is obvious, because of his experiences he does know this wouldn't bring about anything other than the annihilation of Israel. He's cool with that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html



Read the whole thing. The 'superior in his own mind' poster knows this, perhaps better than Kruthammer.

how charming. I, actually, am probably the most ardent Israeli supporter on this board. I want Israel to succeed. I know that in 1948, Ben Gurion was pleased as punch to get what he got from the UN. He was even more pleased at what he ended up when the ceasefire ended with Israel owning even MORE than the UN gave them. I know who attacked whom and I know who beat the shit out of whom and I also know that Israeli citizens would gladly give up land if they could get assurances that the arabs on the receiving end would finally turn their swords into plowshares. If Hamas can regain the trust of the palestinians in Gaza and move Hamas to the margin, Israelis would gladly give up large chunks of the west bank and all of Gaza - and all of the Golan, for that matter - if it meant that their neighbors would simply recognize their right to exist.

[red states rule]

look NT... I understand that you are not ignorant about the middle east... neither am I. I know that what happened at Camp David was not Egypt crawling on their belly like a wounded dog, begging for anything. THey came knowing that Israel wanted peace, and they wanted peace, and they walked away from that table with the Sinai and with billions of dollars from us that they have received every year since that day.... They got a pretty goddamned sweet deal... a whole shitload of land and a boatload of cash in perpetuity. That is NOT a situation where one party came to the table beaten and surrendering. That is my only point.

MM, I agree. Nobody should call you ignorant. Calling you ignorant would be an insult to stupid people everywhere :laugh2:

[maineman]

It's obvious to all that maineman, manfrommaine, virgil, iknowmorethananyoneelse, ivebeentothesinai, ivebeentothesinaiifyouhaventyourignorantofallyousp eak, ivewornabluehelmet, ivewornabluehelmetandamsuperiorandaprick, ivelegionsofsailorsthathathatemebecauseimsuperiora ndaprickandhaventaproblemwithbeingone, imaprickbutsinceivebeentothemiddleeastyouareanigno ranttoolthatshouldshutthefuckup sees no redeeming value in Israel. Like Obama he thinks they should just give up land. Unlike Obama, at least from what is obvious, because of his experiences he does know this wouldn't bring about anything other than the annihilation of Israel. He's cool with that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html



Read the whole thing. The 'superior in his own mind' poster knows this, perhaps better than Kruthammer.


MM, I agree. Nobody should call you ignorant. Calling you ignorant would be an insult to stupid people everywhere :laugh2:


how cowardly. you can insult me, but you hide behind your status as staff and ban me from threads if I ever respond in kind. WHy am I not surprised?

[red states rule]

how cowardly. you can insult me, but you hide behind your status as staff and ban me from threads if I ever respond in kind. WHy am I not surprised?

I am surprised at you period MM. I am very familiar with people like you. I have met and seen people like you

But I always had to pay an addmission fee to do so

So far you have had your clock cleaned on every thread since your return

While you may have felt good about your return - you were the only one who felt that way MM

[maineman]

:: waiting patiently for the banning notice ::
:lame2:

[Kathianne]

how charming. I, actually, am probably the most ardent Israeli supporter on this board. I want Israel to succeed. I know that in 1948, Ben Gurion was pleased as punch to get what he got from the UN. He was even more pleased at what he ended up when the ceasefire ended with Israel owning even MORE than the UN gave them. I know who attacked whom and I know who beat the shit out of whom and I also know that Israeli citizens would gladly give up land if they could get assurances that the arabs on the receiving end would finally turn their swords into plowshares. If Hamas can regain the trust of the palestinians in Gaza and move Hamas to the margin, Israelis would gladly give up large chunks of the west bank and all of Gaza - and all of the Golan, for that matter - if it meant that their neighbors would simply recognize their right to exist.

Phooey! You are advocating what Obama is, which is not only not in Israel's best interests, but a death warrant for the state. You know it. I'll give the president the out of stupidity. You however have spent years telling all of us your familiarity with the ME, so you KNOW.

[red states rule]

Phooey! You are advocating what Obama is, which is not only not in Israel's best interests, but a death warrant for the state. You know it. I'll give the president the out of stupidity. You however have spent years telling all of us your familiarity with the ME, so you KNOW.

Yea he always tell us how smart he is

Please MM keep talking. I will yawn when I'm interested. OK?

[maineman]

Phooey! You are advocating what Obama is, which is not only not in Israel's best interests, but a death warrant for the state. You know it. I'll give the president the out of stupidity. You however have spent years telling all of us your familiarity with the ME, so you KNOW.
again, kathy, I have NEVER advocated Israel giving up ANYTHING without ironclad assurances of recognition and peace. Neither has the president.

but your hatred for the kenyan muslim clouds your judgment... it always has.

[maineman]

Yea he always tell us how smart he is

Please MM keep talking. I will yawn when I'm interested. OK?
whatever you care to do is fine with me, red... I understand the hierarchy and your exalted status.

[red states rule]

again, kathy, I have NEVER advocated Israel giving up ANYTHING without ironclad assurances of recognition and peace. Neither has the president.

but your hatred for the kenyan muslim clouds your judgment... it always has.

You are a truely amazing person MM. Remarkable to say the least

Your ancestors must number in the millions MM. Thus it is hard to believe or comprehend that many people are to blame for producing you.

[maineman]

You are a truely amazing person MM. Remarkable to say the least

Your ancestors must number in the millions MM. Thus it is hard to believe or comprehend that many people are to blame for producing you.

If you keep my human ancestors out of the discussion, I'll keep the canines in your family tree out of it as well...mmmkay?

[red states rule]

If you keep my human ancestors out of the discussion, I'll keep the canines in your family tree out of it as well...mmmkay?

I got it now!!

Your entire purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

and it is such a shame. I wonder what your life would have been like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth

[maineman]

I got it now!!

Your entire purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

and it is such a shame. I wonder what your life owuld have been like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth

you know red... my life is pretty nice. I don't have any terrible diseases.. I have a lovely wife, a lovely home, a bunch of great kids who are all doing well. My youngest just graduated summa cum laude with two majors and she is headed to UMaine Law School. I am on the brink of starting a great adventure with my wife...

and how are those stray cats of yours?

[red states rule]

you know red... my life is pretty nice. I don't have any terrible diseases.. I have a lovely wife, a lovely home, a bunch of great kids who are all doing well. My youngest just graduated summa cum laude with two majors and she is headed to UMaine Law School. I am on the brink of starting a great adventure with my wife...

and how are those stray cats of yours?

Now I understand why people fell about you the way they do

When you were a kid your parents wanted to hire someone to take care of you

But the Mafia wanted way to much

Now we are stuck with you

[maineman]

Now I understand why people fell about you the way they do

When you were a kid your parents wanted to hire someone to take care of you

But the Mafia wanted way to much

Now we are stuck with you

like I said... you should probably keep my parents out of this...

bow wow wow

[red states rule]

bow wow wow

Talking to your mate in the native language?

[jimnyc]

whatever you care to do is fine with me, red... I understand the hierarchy and your exalted status.

You have been engaging in a flamefest along with everyone else in this thread. You've been back just a few short days and this is the 2nd time I've had to ask you already to stop bringing up staff/decisions in threads. Is it REALLY that hard to follow?

[maineman]

bottom line... Israel has won a lot of land from their neighbors... nonetheless, they are surrounded, for the most part, by neighbors who want their destruction. And beyond those neighbors, are other muslim countries who have, for decades, kept their people powerless and distracted them with anti-Israeli rhetoric. The arab spring is happening. at none of the demonstrations for freedom, was there any anti-Israeli or anti-American sentiments. Israel still needs to deal with the situation it finds itself. It can continue to fend off terrorist attacks and hold the palestinians at bay, or it can take a bold step and try, in this new environment, to forge new pathways to a lasting peace. If that means giving back the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and large portions of the west bank, I think they should try to do so. Nobody is suggesting that Israel be thrown under the bus, but some ARE suggesting that they revisit land for peace in light of the new realities that the arab spring has created, and try again to proactively seek lasting peace with its neighbors.

Nobody is suggesting that Israel give even one acre away without ironclad treaties that guarantee their right to exist and assurances that violence against Israel is no longer on the table.

[maineman]

You have been engaging in a flamefest along with everyone else in this thread. You've been back just a few short days and this is the 2nd time I've had to ask you already to stop bringing up staff/decisions in threads. Is it REALLY that hard to follow?

not at all.

it's perfectly cool to suggest my wife is a dog.

got it.

[red states rule]

not at all.

it's perfectly cool to suggest my wife is a dog.

got it.

Hey you said it - I didn't :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

not at all.

it's perfectly cool to suggest my wife is a dog.

got it.

Do you want to be a member here or not? The rules are pretty clear here. If you can't take a little flaming back and forth, then don't post in the political section. If you think you can AND you are flaming along with others - then don't complain about staff when you feel their flaming is better than yours and NO MODERATION has occurred.

[red states rule]

Do you want to be a member here or not? The rules are pretty clear here. If you can't take a little flaming back and forth, then don't post in the political section. If you think you can AND you are flaming along with others - then don't complain about staff when you feel their flaming is better than yours and NO MODERATION has occurred.

Take it easy Jim. I have learned one thing from MM

The amazing power of the sex drive was proven by the fact that someone was willing to father MM

[maineman]

Do you want to be a member here or not? The rules are pretty clear here. If you can't take a little flaming back and forth, then don't post in the political section. If you think you can AND you are flaming along with others - then don't complain about staff when you feel their flaming is better than yours and NO MODERATION has occurred.

sure Jim... I was totally out of line by pointing out the fact that RSR welched on a $500 bet with me... and that got me, justifiably, banned from a thread by him... but it is perfectly OK for him to call me wife a dog. I understand the rules and I will do my utmost to live by them.

[jimnyc]

sure Jim... I was totally out of line by pointing out the fact that RSR welched on a $500 bet with me... and that got me, justifiably, banned from a thread by him... but it is perfectly OK for him to call me wife a dog. I understand the rules and I will do my utmost to live by them.

Keep being a condescending prick and I'll start with shit about your wife. I'm done assisting you. You were asked to do JUST ONE THING when I let you back, and apparently that's too much for you to grasp. You really are fucking stupid sometimes. You can't last here fucking 24 hours without turning into a little whining ninny. How old are you again, just about 10 now? Seriously dude, grow the fuck up and stop being a hypocrite. You're perhaps the biggest flamer and most problematic user I've seen on ANY board, and yet all you do is whine incessantly about the way staff treats you here. Sure, the same staff - the ONLY staff around that will still put up with you. JUST HOW MANY FUCKING BOARDS ARE YOU BANNED AT NOW, VIRGIL?

[red states rule]

sure Jim... I was totally out of line by pointing out the fact that RSR welched on a $500 bet with me... and that got me, justifiably, banned from a thread by him... but it is perfectly OK for him to call me wife a dog. I understand the rules and I will do my utmost to live by them.

Hey MM I heard you named a street after your mate

What a statement of his love for your mate; after all your mate is cold, hard, cracked, and only gets plowed around the holidays.

[maineman]

Keep being a condescending prick and I'll start with shit about your wife. I'm done assisting you. You were asked to do JUST ONE THING when I let you back, and apparently that's too much for you to grasp. You really are fucking stupid sometimes. You can't last here fucking 24 hours without turning into a little whining ninny. How old are you again, just about 10 now? Seriously dude, grow the fuck up and stop being a hypocrite. You're perhaps the biggest flamer and most problematic user I've seen on ANY board, and yet all you do is whine incessantly about the way staff treats you here. Sure, the same staff - the ONLY staff around that will still put up with you. JUST HOW MANY FUCKING BOARDS ARE YOU BANNED AT NOW, VIRGIL?

I will try to play by the rules, Jim.

oh...and my wife says, woof woof woof.

[red states rule]

I will try to play by the rules, Jim.

oh...and my wife says, woof woof woof.

It is mating season? Why are you still here?

[maineman]

Hey MM I heard you named a street after your mate

What a statement of his love for your mate; after all your mate is cold, hard, cracked, and only gets plowed around the holidays.

I stand in awe of your wit.

I bet the cats are meowing with glee at the incredible sense of humor of their master.

woof woof

[red states rule]

I stand in awe of your wit.

I bet the cats are meowing with glee at the incredible sense of humor of their master.

woof woof

Yes MM, in may case the cream rises to the top

In your case it is the scum

[maineman]

Yes MM, in may case the cream rises to the top

In your case it is the scum

wow... Leno is looking for a writer. You'd be FABULOUS. really.

I mean that.

like a rapier.

[red states rule]

wow... Leno is looking for a writer. You'd be FABULOUS. really.

I mean that.

like a rapier.

That is the difference between you and MM. The closest you will ever come to a brainstorm is a slight almost non-existent drizzle

[maineman]

That is the difference between you and MM. The closest you will ever come to a brainstorm is a slight almost non-existent drizzle


how do you do it? post after post... incredibly intellectual zingers. I am in awe.

[red states rule]

how do you do it? post after post... incredibly intellectual zingers. I am in awe.

Well it is late now and I have a busy day tomorrow. I am going to your family reunion

at the National Zoo

Goodnight

[maineman]

Well it is laste now and I have a busy day tomorrow. I am going to your family reunion

at the National Zoo

Goodnight

wow...spot on right up until the very end. you are a god.

[maineman]

I think this got lost in the absolutely mindboggling laugh fest that RSR gave us... but I hope it might get us back to the topic at hand now that the humor master has trundled off to bed:


bottom line... Israel has won a lot of land from their neighbors... nonetheless, they are surrounded, for the most part, by neighbors who want their destruction. And beyond those neighbors, are other muslim countries who have, for decades, kept their people powerless and distracted them with anti-Israeli rhetoric. The arab spring is happening. at none of the demonstrations for freedom, was there any anti-Israeli or anti-American sentiments. Israel still needs to deal with the situation it finds itself. It can continue to fend off terrorist attacks and hold the palestinians at bay, or it can take a bold step and try, in this new environment, to forge new pathways to a lasting peace. If that means giving back the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and large portions of the west bank, I think they should try to do so. Nobody is suggesting that Israel be thrown under the bus, but some ARE suggesting that they revisit land for peace in light of the new realities that the arab spring has created, and try again to proactively seek lasting peace with its neighbors.

Nobody is suggesting that Israel give even one acre away without ironclad treaties that guarantee their right to exist and assurances that violence against Israel is no longer on the table.

[Kathianne]

again, kathy, I have NEVER advocated Israel giving up ANYTHING without ironclad assurances of recognition and peace. Neither has the president.

but your hatred for the kenyan muslim clouds your judgment... it always has.

Bullshit. Post one link to anything that backs this up. You sir, are a tool, a prick, and a sorry excuse for a military member.

[Kathianne]

bottom line... Israel has won a lot of land from their neighbors... nonetheless, they are surrounded, for the most part, by neighbors who want their destruction. And beyond those neighbors, are other muslim countries who have, for decades, kept their people powerless and distracted them with anti-Israeli rhetoric. The arab spring is happening. at none of the demonstrations for freedom, was there any anti-Israeli or anti-American sentiments. Israel still needs to deal with the situation it finds itself. It can continue to fend off terrorist attacks and hold the palestinians at bay, or it can take a bold step and try, in this new environment, to forge new pathways to a lasting peace. If that means giving back the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and large portions of the west bank, I think they should try to do so. Nobody is suggesting that Israel be thrown under the bus, but some ARE suggesting that they revisit land for peace in light of the new realities that the arab spring has created, and try again to proactively seek lasting peace with its neighbors.

Nobody is suggesting that Israel give even one acre away without ironclad treaties that guarantee their right to exist and assurances that violence against Israel is no longer on the table.

Really? Link up, please. Note bolded. Show where Obama gave that talk.

[maineman]

Bullshit. Post one link to anything that backs this up. You sir, are a tool, a prick, and a sorry excuse for a military member.

you are asking me for a link that says that proves that Obama does NOT know that no land for peace is possible without ironclad assurances of sovereignty and a rejection of violence.

I would suggest that such a stance has always been the policy of the US. I would further suggest that you need to post ONE link that would suggest that Obama has changed that policy.

and thanks for the insults.

[Kathianne]

you are asking me for a link that says that proves that Obama does NOT know that no land for peace is possible without ironclad assurances of sovereignty and a rejection of violence.

I would suggest that such a stance has always been the policy of the US. I would further suggest that you need to post ONE link that would suggest that Obama has changed that policy.

and thanks for the insults.

Speaking slow, your quote:
hatred for the kenyan muslim clouds your judgment... it always has.

Go. No diversions.

[maineman]

Speaking slow, your quote:

Go. No diversions.


where has Obama ever suggested that Israel should give up land for peace without gaining acknowledgment of sovereignty and a renouncing of violence?

he hasn't.

but thanks for gratuitously denigrating my service... I really appreciate it.

[DragonStryk72]

where has Obama ever suggested that Israel should give up land for peace without gaining acknowledgment of sovereignty and a renouncing of violence?

he hasn't.

but thanks for gratuitously denigrating my service... I really appreciate it.

Speaking as a former military man, stop using your service to make yourself "unquestionable". It's dishonorable. You darn well know that people are going to ask for evidence of your POV, regardless of your perosnal experience. Being a vet doesn't get you out of that, so ruck up.

What they are telling you, and have done so repeatedly now, is that there can be no agreement that could be trusted to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty and a renounce violence against them, because, again, one of the central points that these countries have is eradicate Israel. It's like trying to get us to swear not to allow voting any more.

[jimnyc]

Speaking as a former military man, stop using your service to make yourself "unquestionable". It's dishonorable.

:clap:

[maineman]

Speaking as a former military man, stop using your service to make yourself "unquestionable". It's dishonorable. You darn well know that people are going to ask for evidence of your POV, regardless of your perosnal experience. Being a vet doesn't get you out of that, so ruck up.

What they are telling you, and have done so repeatedly now, is that there can be no agreement that could be trusted to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty and a renounce violence against them, because, again, one of the central points that these countries have is eradicate Israel. It's like trying to get us to swear not to allow voting any more.

again... can you point to one statement by Obama that would depart from America's long standing support of Israel regarding giving up land for peace in absence of acknowledgement of sovereignty and an renouncement of violence? I'll wait.

[Kathianne]

where has Obama ever suggested that Israel should give up land for peace without gaining acknowledgment of sovereignty and a renouncing of violence?

he hasn't.

but thanks for gratuitously denigrating my service... I really appreciate it.

The speech he's being criticized for, the one you are trying to excuse and explain. Idiot. Murderer enabler!

[maineman]

The speech he's being criticized for, the one you are trying to excuse and explain. Idiot. Murderer enabler!

you clearly didn't hear the speech. NOT ONE WORD abandoned the longstanding US commitment to Israel and not one word suggested that land should be given without assurances of acknowledgment of sovereignty and renouncement of violence.

Or maybe you have a link to a portion of text that would disprove that?

idiot moron cow

[jimnyc]

idiot moron cow

I've read her posts, she's no idiot and no moron. She's posted her picture and recently far from a cow.

Your posts since you returned yesterday, especially those showing you're willing to use your own wife as a punchline in your "jokes" AND in a sexual manner, lead me to believe you are making idiotic and moronic posts. Unless you lost a very large amount of weight since the last time I saw a photo of you, you are much more likely to be called a cow than Kathianne.

[red states rule]

you clearly didn't hear the speech. NOT ONE WORD abandoned the longstanding US commitment to Israel and not one word suggested that land should be given without assurances of acknowledgment of sovereignty and renouncement of violence.

Or maybe you have a link to a portion of text that would disprove that?

idiot moron cow

I have to admit I admire you MM. You have done something I never had the courage to do

Be a full time liar, cheat, and scumbag

I have to admit you are one of the best in the profesion

[red states rule]

I've read her posts, she's no idiot and no moron. She's posted her picture and recently far from a cow.

Your posts since you returned yesterday, especially those showing you're willing to use your own wife as a punchline in your "jokes" AND in a sexual manner, lead me to believe you are making idiotic and moronic posts. Unless you lost a very large amount of weight since the last time I saw a photo of you, you are much more likely to be called a cow than Kathianne.

Trust me MM has not skipped to many meals. He recently went skydiving and they ran out of parachutes

So MM simply used his shorts as a parachute

[DragonStryk72]

again... can you point to one statement by Obama that would depart from America's long standing support of Israel regarding giving up land for peace in absence of acknowledgement of sovereignty and an renouncement of violence? I'll wait.

Can you post any evidence of the "long-standing" evidence? I believe I already asked this of you earlier in the thread, prior to this question of yours, and you still have yet to answer.

How do you know the position of every single president since '67, even when you admit that they made no statements on it? You are saying that you have this knowledge, well then, sack up and post it so we can be enlightened.

[maineman]

I've read her posts, she's no idiot and no moron. She's posted her picture and recently far from a cow.

Your posts since you returned yesterday, especially those showing you're willing to use your own wife as a punchline in your "jokes" AND in a sexual manner, lead me to believe you are making idiotic and moronic posts. Unless you lost a very large amount of weight since the last time I saw a photo of you, you are much more likely to be called a cow than Kathianne.

funny you should mention that... I just had a visit with my cardiologist and he was amazed that I had lost 30 lbs since he last saw me... and hey... it was clear to me that you were totally cool with your staff calling my wife a dog... I was just trying to light heartedly play along.

If you are upset when people talk about other people's spouses, maybe you could make that clear.

[red states rule]

funny you should mention that... I just had a visit with my cardiologist and he was amazed that I had lost 30 lbs since he last saw me... and hey... it was clear to me that you were totally cool with your staff calling my wife a dog... I was just trying to light heartedly play along.

If you are upset when people talk about other people's spouses, maybe you could make that clear.

Lost 30 pounds?

Look behind you and you will find it

[maineman]

Lost 30 pounds?

Look behind you and you will find it

laugh riot.

comedy god.

honestly.

I thought you were going to bed.... big day at the teller's window tomorrow?

I guess oral kitty stimulation is tough to come down from eh?

[Kathianne]

funny you should mention that... I just had a visit with my cardiologist and he was amazed that I had lost 30 lbs since he last saw me... and hey... it was clear to me that you were totally cool with your staff calling my wife a dog... I was just trying to light heartedly play along.

If you are upset when people talk about other people's spouses, maybe you could make that clear.

Funny that you should mention the slams against you and bring in your wife. Seems a principled person would leave.

[red states rule]

laugh riot.

comedy god.

honestly.

I thought you were going to bed.... big day at the teller's window tomorrow?

I guess oral kitty stimulation is tough to come down from eh?

I know it is hard for you to lose weight

Sitting at the computer for so long, drinking, and eating all that salt

You could try jogging but then all those potholes you would leave behind and having to pay the repair bill to the city can add up

[Kathianne]

funny you should mention that... I just had a visit with my cardiologist and he was amazed that I had lost 30 lbs since he last saw me... and hey... it was clear to me that you were totally cool with your staff calling my wife a dog... I was just trying to light heartedly play along.

If you are upset when people talk about other people's spouses, maybe you could make that clear.

Funny that you should mention the slams against you and bring in your wife. Seems a principled person would leave.

Then again, you're banned from most sites. Even with that, being principled and all, you should leave before banned, cause you care about your wife and all.

[maineman]

Funny that you should mention the slams against you and bring in your wife. Seems a principled person would leave.

leave? I just got here! It's good to see that you fully support your buddies attacking member's spouses.

what a gal!

[red states rule]

Funny that you should mention the slams against you and bring in your wife. Seems a principled person would leave.

Kat that is the one good thing about MM when he arrives anywhere he goes

Everyone loves it when he leaves

[Kathianne]

leave? I just got here! It's good to see that you fully support your buddies attacking member's spouses.

what a gal!

hardly. I'm shocked that you don't care.

[red states rule]

leave? I just got here! It's good to see that you fully support your buddies attacking member's spouses.

what a gal!

A good guest never overstays their welcome MM

Hint hint

[maineman]

hardly. I'm shocked that you don't care.

gotta link where you castigated RSR for calling my wife a dog?

I'll wait.

and here is a big hint..... words on the screen on the computer are not worth a bucket of warm spit, kathy....my wife has been reading a few of these posts, but she is bored by this sort of schoolyard banter and has gone to bed.

[red states rule]

gotta link where you castigated RSR for calling my wife a dog?

I'll wait.

and here is a big hint..... words on the screen on the computer are not worth a bucket of warm spit, kathy....my wife has been reading a few of these posts, but she is bored by this sort of schoolyard banter and has gone to bed.

Has she gone to bed with anyone you know or is this a new one?

[maineman]

Has she gone to bed with anyone you know or is this a new one?


wow.

comedy gold

[jimnyc]

gotta link where you castigated RSR for calling my wife a dog?

I'll wait.

Show us all on the board where RSR outright called your wife a dog. WE WILL ALL WAIT.

[red states rule]

Show us all on the board where RSR outright called your wife a dog. WE WILL ALL WAIT.

This is easy Jim

Please see posts # 191 and 192

MM made the dog reference FIRST and I never mentioned the word WIFE

[maineman]

This is easy Jim

Please see posts # 191 and 192

MM made the dog reference FIRST and I never mentioned the word WIFE
in 192, you said "mate" not wife.

[red states rule]

in 192, you said "mate" not wife.

Yes I did and it could have been anyone. I did not insult your wife - you did that yourself

As I said before, what a undemanding person she must be

[jimnyc]

So maineman said "bow wow wow" and you replied something about him talking to his mate in his native language?

And that's why he's stated in several threads umpteen times that the board is allowing people to talk smack about his wife?

I'd say he needs to grow thicker skin... That's barely a flame and have seen him speak worse of people when he was trying to be nice. And he freaked out and became condescending with me because I *gulp* allowed you to state he speaks to his "mate" in bow wow wow language.

Sticks and stones.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

[red states rule]

So maineman said "bow wow wow" and you replied something about him talking to his mate in his native language?

And that's why he's stated in several threads umpteen times that the board is allowing people to talk smack about his wife?

I'd say he needs to grow thicker skin... That's barely a flame and have seen him speak worse of people when he was trying to be nice. And he freaked out and became condescending with me because I *gulp* allowed you to state he speaks to his "mate" in bow wow wow language.

Sticks and stones.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

and this from a guy who said he was an OFFICER in the US Navy. I always thought officers were cool, calm, rational, clear thinking, and knew how to take pressure

This clown could not command a boat in the Tunnel of Love Jim

I guess MM is so use to bossing people around and always getting his way, he gets flustered and upset the minute anyone does not do as he says

IOW he is a wuss and a crybaby

[actsnoblemartin]

Looks like Obama is carrying on in the tradition of Yasser Arafat

well said rsr. He could be the plo spokesman

[LuvRPgrl]

well said rsr. He could be the plo spokesman

Where ya been you big bad boy?:laugh:

[fj1200]

OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!

Can't we just get back to the subject.

[DragonStryk72]

spoken like someone who has never driven through the Sinai. If the Sinai were teeming with natural resources like the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula, or was home to millions of Egyptians displaced in the war, then I can imagine that Egypt would have said, HOLY SHIT... We simply MUST get that land back! It is KEY to our economic survival. That is not the case. The war was fought by an alliance of Arab nations, and lost by that same alliance. The Sinai was lost in 1967. If the loss of the Sinai and the HOLY SHIT WE GOTTA GET OUR LAND BACK mentality had driven Egypt to the bargaining table, why did they wait eleven years? Clearly, the desperate desire to reclaim their land was not as desperate as you would have us believe. And again.... will someone tell me what Sadat "surrendered" at Camp David? He signed a peace treaty and got an enormous - albeit worthless - chunk of land. Folks who are beaten and surrender usually are the ones who walk away having given up something. Germany at the end of WWI comes to mind. To suggest that Egypt was beaten and surrendered and THAT is why they negotiated peace with Israel eleven years after losing the six day war is just plain silly.

Who in this whole thread said it was about economics? Don't you think it made Egypt look more than a little weak getting their asses handed to them by a country 1/10th their size?

Haven't countries gone to war over there because they saw a weak country that could be taken somewhat easily? Egypt was saving face with the aid coming their way, because they could hang their hat on the point that they'd come out ahead on the deal, while Israel got a country willing to accept their existence.

It had NOTHING to do with Israel wanting peace. They wanted peace before Egypt had their sudden epiphany, and Egypt didn't give a shit. They wanted to wipe Israel out, right up until the actual fight occurred and it turned out Israel was more than Egypt could chew. Then, suddenly, they want peace.

Yeah, generally people tend to want peace when someone beats them like they owe 'em child support, it just makes everything a lot less painful more so when they were the ones who started the fight in the first place.

[n0spam4me]

first of all, people are playing the same old tired game of
"libs" Vs "cons" that doesn't work!

Please note that right after the infamous 6 day war, the UN
passes a resolution condemning the taking of lands and in fact
demanding the return of said lands.

Think about this if you will, if you just happen to be an ARAB
nation in violation of UN demands, you get military action against
your country, however if you are ISRAEL and you are in violation
of UN demands, you get aid from Uncle Sam.

go figure....

[red states rule]

first of all, people are playing the same old tired game of
"libs" Vs "cons" that doesn't work!

Please note that right after the infamous 6 day war, the UN
passes a resolution condemning the taking of lands and in fact
demanding the return of said lands.

Think about this if you will, if you just happen to be an ARAB
nation in violation of UN demands, you get military action against
your country, however if you are ISRAEL and you are in violation
of UN demands, you get aid from Uncle Sam.

go figure....

As I have said before, and I stand by it. Peace will happen when one side is beaten and can no longer fight

Speaking of the UN...


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaoun500.gif