Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
If I buy a a lot of plots of land in Canada, does that give me the right to create my own country inside canada ?
This bas-tard cancer state called "israel" was created by the white man to compensate for the the holocaust. Why should arabs give up their land to compenstate for white man's crimes ?
If the whites love jews so much, they should give part of Texas to Jews and let jews create israel in part of Texas.
Israel was created by force by white europeans, by uprooting the local palestinians. Israel will also be uprooted by force. Artificial states like aparthied south africa and HOng Kong dont last very long. Once the natives become powerful they kick out the foreigners.
Israel is a great nation and I am so proud of Israel fighting off these vicious bloodthirsty arabs for over 60 years.
Israel was created on areas which had a Jewish Majority.
When the british and french left the middle east after world war II they created many nations for minorities
such as lebanon for christian arabs, israel for jewish arabs, jordan for hashemite arabs
Well Israel is surviving and thriving.
Its tech sector is booming, more people are recognizing Israel, the more attempts you try to destroy Israel the stronger its getting.
Please, why don't you keep attacking Israel.
The stronger it will get.
More Pakistanis are realizing the mistake of supporting Arabs on the Israel-Palestine issue...
Bache tu apne bakwaas mughe convince nai kar saka then what hope you have of convincing people who are going to make a difference like political leaders
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
so how do you think Canada and America came into being as "countries"?
Even after the local tribes were driven away, territories bigger than many countries were bought and sold. Ever heard of Louisiana purchace?
Palestinian Arabs were a tad bit higher in social structures than the native Indians. The result, utter loss of territory. Yes PBH, the land you now live in and run your 7-11s and aloo stores were all non-White territory. Would you give up your store to a native Indian tomorrow?
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
Even after the local tribes were driven away, territories bigger than many countries were bought and sold. Ever heard of Louisiana purchace?
Palestinian Arabs were a tad bit higher in social structures than the native Indians. The result, utter loss of territory. Yes PBH, the land you now live in and run your 7-11s and aloo stores were all non-White territory. Would you give up your store to a native Indian tomorrow?
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
Even after the local tribes were driven away, territories bigger than many countries were bought and sold. Ever heard of Louisiana purchace?
Palestinian Arabs were a tad bit higher in social structures than the native Indians. The result, utter loss of territory. Yes PBH, the land you now live in and run your 7-11s and aloo stores were all non-White territory. Would you give up your store to a native Indian tomorrow?
??
??
It is so quiet!
You are making it out as if the whole Israel that was created by UN/UK was ONLY on the land that was purchased by Jews. Thats not true!
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
and enough with your aloo store theories!
Israel was created on areas which had a jewish majority and most of it was farm areas purchased from Arabs. Jews turned the desert green. they only had two cities under them, tel aviv and haifa...
The original jewish state proposed in the UN was very small than compared to the one on June 4, 1967....
But since the Arabs attacked and used the Palestinians as pawns and then didn't give them a country of their own
Jordan had West Bank and Egypt and Gaza
Why didn't they declare a palestinian state for them from 1948-67...
They had 19 years...
the truth of the matter is, both of those countries annexed the territories for them..
Once Israel took them over, the Arabs took a moral high ground and announced that the area will become Palestine...
Maybe thats why Palestinians have more rights in Israel than they do in other Arab countries...
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
why are you so willing to accept that the colonial imperialist powers acted in the best interests of the native populations of those lands, when history has shown the exact opposite?
they are responsible for drawing up the map of the modern middle east........and you actually think thats a good thing?
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
I agree with almost all of his views.
He writes an interesting article.
Take a look
Of Imperial Presidents and Congressional Cowards
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Now that Congress is back from spring break and looking ahead to Memorial Day, July 4, the August recess and adjournment early in October for elections, perhaps it can take up this question.
Does President Bush have, or not have, the authority to take us to war with Iran? Because Bush and the War Party are surely behaving as though this were an executive decision alone.
No sooner had President Ahmadinejad declared that his country had enriched a speck of uranium than the war drums began again.
Bush has said of Iran that even “a process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” John McCain has said too many times to count, “The military option is on the table.” The 2006 National Security Strategy re-endorses preventive war and elevates Iran to the No. 1 threat to the United States.
This is not enough for The Weekly Standard, which equates our situation with that of France in 1936, when Paris sat immobile while Hitler marched three lightly armed battalions back into the German Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Versailles Treaty.
“To Bomb or Not to Bomb, That Is the Iran Question,” is the title of an extended piece in the Standard, whose editorial calls for “urgent operational planning for bombing strikes.” As that would likely ignite Shia and Revolutionary Guard terror attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Standard wants Bush to send more troops.
In an editorial “Iran, Now,” National Review is already into target acquisition. It calls for plans for a massive bombing campaign “coupled with an aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within.” Ideally, U.S. bombs “should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison.”
In The Washington Post, Mark Helprin, who is identified as having “served in the Israeli army and air force,” says “the obvious option is an aerial campaign to divest Iran of its nuclear potential: i.e., clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian naval forces, scrub anti-ship missiles from the shore and lay open antiaircraft-free corridors to each target. … Were the targets effectively hidden or buried, Iran could be shut down, coerced and perhaps revolutionized by the simple and rapid destruction of its oil production and transport.”
Since Muslims may not like what we are up to, Helprin cautions, we should prepare “for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates,” and, presumably, from there the final push on to Tehran.
In all this hawk talk, something is missing. We are not told how many innocent Iranians we will have to kill as we go about smashing their nuclear program and defenses. Nor are we told how many more soldiers we will need for the neocons’ new war, nor how long they will have to fight, nor how many more wings we should plan for at Walter Reed, nor when it will be over – if ever.
Moreover, where does Bush get the authority to launch a war on a nation that has not attacked us? As few believe Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, while four neighbors – Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel, not to mention the United States – already have the bomb, what is America’s justification for war?
If we sat by while Stalin got the bomb, and Mao got the bomb, and Kim Jong-Il got the bomb, why is an Iranian bomb a threat to the United States, which possesses thousands?
There is a reason the Founding Fathers separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. The reason is just such a ruler as George W. Bush, a man possessed of an ideology and sense of mission that are not necessarily coterminous with what is best for his country. Under our Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war.
Many Democrats now concede they failed the nation when they took Bush at his word that Iraq was an intolerable threat that could be dealt with only by an invasion. Now, Bush and the War Party are telling us the same thing about Iran. And the Congress is conducting itself in the same contemptible and cowardly way.
It is time for Congress to tell President Bush directly that he has no authority to go to war on Iran and to launch such a war would be an impeachable offense. Or, if they so conclude, Congress should share full responsibility by granting him that authority after it has held hearings and told the people why we have no other choice than another Mideast war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.
If Congress lacks the courage to do its constitutional duty, it should stop whining about imperial presidents. Because, like the Roman Senate of Caesar’s time, it will have invited them and it will deserve them.
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
Theres nothing wrong with aloo stores per se, however 1) the context you use it in is derogatory and hence unacceptable, and 2) You are generalising about a whole community which you obviously dont seem to know much about. Hence it is in no way calling a spade 'a spade', and is infact down right disrespectful.
Re: Ahmedinejad continues to yap/Answer Ahmadinejad (merged)
As far as Israeli area of today, sure Israel "won" it after multiple wars inititated by Arabs.
Now you lose your territory in a war, you may not get it back. Sadly this why it is called "war".
Correct me if I'm wrong, after UN was established, wasn't it "illegal" to occupy a land after "winning" the war?
don’t repeat that circus again!