Where is the WOPR when you need it?

(05-23-2011 11:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  With or without the quotation marks, it would probably be helpful to avoid the words "final solution" in this discussion.

Someone used ENDGAME earlier

Even that is preferable to the other one

(05-23-2011 11:11 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 11:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  With or without the quotation marks, it would probably be helpful to avoid the words "final solution" in this discussion.

Someone used ENDGAME earlier

Even that is preferable to the other one

Yes. But I was referring to Gaza being reduced to rubble in an Israeli Counter-attack.

The sad part is the average "Joe Palestinian" that now 'survives' on a $2.75 a day food ration really just wants a job and a better place in life. Its only about 15% of the population and the PA Leadership Class that is really up for jihad because that brings them money from the Arab world.

Since the Palestinian leadership has refused to clamp down on Terrorism, the Israelis have isolated both the West Bank and Gaza from Israel, where many of the Palestinians had jobs. Not anymore. Thus they sit in their slums. At least on the West Bank you have religious tourism as an income source. The Tour Bus that goes to Bethlehem gets a PA Police Escort to deter any nutjobs from killing Christians because that would be very bad for business.

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Isn't the Obama proposal only meant to be the starting point for negotiations and not the "final solution?"

OK, but take a map and a pencil, start from the 1949-67 borders, and work out a useful final solution.

With or without the quotation marks, it would probably be helpful to avoid the words "final solution" in this discussion.

Yea, that was intentional and absolutely despicable, especially in this context.

(05-23-2011 07:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I just watched a video of Bush at the King David Hotel in 2008 calling for a return to 1949 borders (same as '67) also Hillary in 2000 calling for a return to '67 .

How many million Jews are you wiling to sacrifice for your liberal agenda? They didn't start the wars in '67 and the Arabs have been trying to push them off that land since Israel was founded. We either support a nation we helped found, or we don't have the balls to call ourselves a superpower. Somehow I think you libs would prefer the latter.

(05-24-2011 05:34 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Isn't the Obama proposal only meant to be the starting point for negotiations and not the "final solution?"

OK, but take a map and a pencil, start from the 1949-67 borders, and work out a useful final solution.

With or without the quotation marks, it would probably be helpful to avoid the words "final solution" in this discussion.

Yea, that was intentional and absolutely despicable, especially in this context.

Not even close...try again skippy. Geez.

(05-24-2011 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 05:34 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 10:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Isn't the Obama proposal only meant to be the starting point for negotiations and not the "final solution?"

OK, but take a map and a pencil, start from the 1949-67 borders, and work out a useful final solution.

With or without the quotation marks, it would probably be helpful to avoid the words "final solution" in this discussion.

Yea, that was intentional and absolutely despicable, especially in this context.

Not even close...try again skippy. Geez.

[apology here]

As I said elsewhere, I'll accept you on your word if you say that this was a result of a poor choice of words. I really had no right to judge your intent. The use of quotes certainly gave the appearance that you were deliberately using charged words.

(05-24-2011 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 07:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I just watched a video of Bush at the King David Hotel in 2008 calling for a return to 1949 borders (same as '67) also Hillary in 2000 calling for a return to '67 .

How many million Jews are you wiling to sacrifice for your liberal agenda? They didn't start the wars in '67 and the Arabs have been trying to push them off that land since Israel was founded. We either support a nation we helped found, or we don't have the balls to call ourselves a superpower. Somehow I think you libs would prefer the latter.

Depends what you mean by "support". If that means helping Israel if they get attacked, I don't think too many would argue against that.

(05-24-2011 07:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 07:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I just watched a video of Bush at the King David Hotel in 2008 calling for a return to 1949 borders (same as '67) also Hillary in 2000 calling for a return to '67 .

How many million Jews are you wiling to sacrifice for your liberal agenda? They didn't start the wars in '67 and the Arabs have been trying to push them off that land since Israel was founded. We either support a nation we helped found, or we don't have the balls to call ourselves a superpower. Somehow I think you libs would prefer the latter.

Depends what you mean by "support". If that means helping Israel if they get attacked, I don't think too many would argue against that.

Israel is being attacked continually.

(05-24-2011 07:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 07:31 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 07:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I just watched a video of Bush at the King David Hotel in 2008 calling for a return to 1949 borders (same as '67) also Hillary in 2000 calling for a return to '67 .

How many million Jews are you wiling to sacrifice for your liberal agenda? They didn't start the wars in '67 and the Arabs have been trying to push them off that land since Israel was founded. We either support a nation we helped found, or we don't have the balls to call ourselves a superpower. Somehow I think you libs would prefer the latter.

Depends what you mean by "support". If that means helping Israel if they get attacked, I don't think too many would argue against that.

If they withdrew to '67 borders, and we stopped all military aid, we couldn't deploy in enough time to keep them from being overrun and slaughtered.

That is reality. The assumption you are making makes about as much sense as us downsizing our military two one flight wing, one Army division, one Marine Corps expeditionary unit, and one carrier and only ramp up if we're attacked.

(05-19-2011 03:21 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2011 03:14 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  That's comical to suggest Israel has been any more willing to work for peace than the Palestinians.

Go back to Clinton's last peace summit between the two, see what was offered Arafat, then come back and apologize for being so ill informed.

This.

There is a great documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict made by Oliver Stone, titled Persona Non Grata. It is pretty even-handed...surprisingly.

If Israel is nine miles wide, it doesn't matter how much aid we give or how quickly we respond. One line breached and they're split in half. That's when they would nuke everybody.