Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guess why the Palestinians are mad.....
Doesn't seem rather sporting.
Since you like to post misleading photos that have nothing to do with the thread, why don't you post who attacked the mandated region in 1947 and who annexed the regions from 1947 through 1967. If the Palestinian people are mad, then it should be directed at their fellow Arabs who did this to them up to 1967. Israel didn't take the land from any Palestinian State, it took the land from the countries that annexed them.
But here's a question for you: If the two regions were under Arab control for nearly twenty years, why didn't they create the State of Palestine and actually become a recognized country? Why???
Covering the history of Iran-US relations over the past 60 years has nothing to do with this thread. But IMO if Carter were man enough in the 70's to do whatever was needed to free the hostages, Iran would not see the US as a paper tiger and easily verbally stepped upon.
Yes Carter should have been man enough to bribe terrorists with arms and money to free the hostages as Reagan did, truly a man's man.
And what would you call the deal he fashioned for Egypt and Israel in 78. Both were paid off for life with billions of dollars and arms. Israel may have gotten more money, but they did have to give back the Sinai and keep Gaza. As to Reagan, he had nothing to do with the money released to Iran as the hostages were freed on 1/20/81 a few minutes after his inaugural address.
And what would you call the deal he fashioned for Egypt and Israel in 78. Both were paid off for life with billions of dollars and arms. Israel may have gotten more money, but they did have to give back the Sinai and keep Gaza. As to Reagan, he had nothing to do with the money released to Iran as the hostages were freed on 1/20/81 a few minutes after his inaugural address.
Reagan wasn't involved in Iran Contra, yes he had no knowledge according to his cabinet but it did happen on his shift, feel free to argue how such a great president had no knowledge that his administration was bribing terrorists.
Reagan wasn't involved in Iran Contra, yes he had no knowledge according to his cabinet but it did happen on his shift, feel free to argue how such a great president had no knowledge that his administration was bribing terrorists.
He had a Bush running his administration, just like Cheney ran Bushes administration.
Iran is considering ditching the NPT; like I said before, Iran, Israel, the USA, and the remaining world powers need to talk immediately. Instead of flexing our muscles on countries that don't even have nuclear capabilities, lets flex our muscles on the country that has nukes but isn't announcing that they have any. It's really not that hard for all of us to talk it out, allow Iran to continue its nuclear program, make Israel sign the NPT, and if Iran wants to create nukes, make a treaty on the limitation of their nukes (quality wise per say).
Since you like to post misleading photos that have nothing to do with the thread, why don't you post who attacked the mandated region in 1947 and who annexed the regions from 1947 through 1967. If the Palestinian people are mad, then it should be directed at their fellow Arabs who did this to them up to 1967. Israel didn't take the land from any Palestinian State, it took the land from the countries that annexed them.
So you think the people were given a fair so in what happened to their lands?
If you're going to leave your door unlocked and get robbed, I blame you not the robber???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruzhany
But here's a question for you: If the two regions were under Arab control for nearly twenty years, why didn't they create the State of Palestine and actually become a recognized country? Why???
Which King and his court gets to wave a magic wand and say as long as you become like us we'll recognize you?
I think the force and coercion Israel uses is something all Americans can be proud of.
This isn't about anti-sentism solely because I don't align myself with any particular religion nor do I despise any group of people for any reason but what I do believe is stupidity should be left between those who want to play stupid. Personally, I believe Iran doesn't have an agenda to create nuclear weapons nonetheless if it ever decided to, it should have the right to but not without agreements between the UN Security Council. I believe Israel, other Middle Eastern Countries, and the main powers of the world can come together and have a civilized argument and finally at the very least make Israel recognize that it has nuclear weapons. If Israel recognizes it has Nuclear capabilities and signs the NPT, we can work from there and attempt to work with Iran with its nuclear program if needed.
So I just want to know what everyone thinks of the Israel potentially bombing Iran nuclear facilities, but without our support.
Right. America shouldnt join the annialiation of Iran because Israel wants to.
America ought to lead the attack because it is the right thing to do.
and Yes regardless of you saying this is not an Anti-semetic post, it certainly is.
Right. America shouldnt join the annialiation of Iran because Israel wants to.
America ought to lead the attack because it is the right thing to do.
and Yes regardless of you saying this is not an Anti-semetic post, it certainly is.
I'm not religious, I have no reason to be anti-Semitic. If the UK was saying they were going to destroy Greece's nuclear program, I wouldn't support the UK in doing so; does that make me anti-British? No, I just wouldn't support the destruction of something without concrete reasoning. Israel is making threats to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, even if Iran was creating nukes, why is it the Israel responsibility to stop it? I think Iran is a bit more reasonable with nukes as opposed to say North Korea, not every country should possess nukes but those who do you should have restrictions. I know you may not be able to see the perspective of Iran, but I do. A country that despises them, and Iran despises the opposing country as well, should have the capabilities to protect its citizens, one enemy should never fight a enemy with rocks while the enemy has nukes. They owe that security to its citizens. In a dream world we'd have a treaty made that abolished all nukes globally but the sad reality is that it doesn't work that way and therefore Iran should be able to have nukes without any tensions from the West and Israel.
Now if al-queda was creating nukes, thats a concrete reason to destroy their weapons program but just because we oppose another countries ideology and more so another country which happens to be our ally doesn't like another country doesn't warrant war in my eyes. I don't want Iran to have nukes, but if it needs them by all means they should be allowed to create them to protect their citizens just as Israel has done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the UK was saying they were going to destroy Greece's nuclear program, I wouldn't support the UK in doing so; does that make me anti-British? No, I just wouldn't support the destruction of something without concrete reasoning. Israel is making threats to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, even if Iran was creating nukes, why is it the Israel responsibility to stop it? I think Iran is a bit more reasonable with nukes as opposed to say North Korea, not every country should possess nukes but those who do you should have restrictions. I know you may not be able to see the perspective of Iran, but I do. A country that despises them, and Iran despises the opposing country as well, should have the capabilities to protect its citizens, one enemy should never fight a enemy with rocks while the enemy has nukes. They owe that security to its citizens. In a dream world we'd have a treaty made that abolished all nukes globally but the sad reality is that it doesn't work that way and therefore Iran should be able to have nukes without any tensions from the West and Israel. 
