um pahars Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Were they disproportionate during the first gulf war (1989) when Iraq saw fit to fire over 40 scud missiles at Israel without retaliation? The reason why Israel sat on their hands, despite wanting to get down and dirty with the Iraqis, was because the US were sat firmly on top of them and holding them back. The US knew their coalition (which included a number of Arab countries) would disintegrate & lose support if the Israelis started firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 If they occupy for military purposes then they build solely for that reason. No need to build towns! We are in Afghanistan. Those nasty insurgents keep shooting at our boys. Should we build nice little towns nearby and move a load of Brit's in? By your thinking that should be acceptable. Can you find UK citizens willing to live in Afghanistan ? Israel doesnt seem to have a problem finding citizens willing to live in the Occupied Territories.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Were they disproportionate during the first gulf war (1989) when Iraq saw fit to fire over 40 scud missiles at Israel without retaliation? One of the cutest things Israel ever did was taking those Scuds on the chin, it kept the Arab world on the side of the Allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Really? becuase your ansectors were living somewhere pre new testament it count's as yours does it? in that case there's alot of cultures/countries with claims to a lot of the world. New zealand for the Maoris only? Should Denmark have a claim on Normandy in france? Norway on Ireland. Apparently early British beaker people came from Spain should we give southern England back to the Spanish? Of course we should give the Falklands back to Argentina shouldn't we? Our Anglo saxon forefathers came from Germany shall we add that to the Uk? The Jewish population of the world had no right to a homeland built out of Palestine Just becuase a jewish kingdom exsisted there in the 6th century BC. Oh dear, you really should get your facts straight before getting on your soap box. Think about it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 No, the people who don't want to hear that Israel constitutes one of the largest problems in the region are those that would slavishly defend that state's behaviour. So what you are saying then is they are not allowed to defend themselves and let the other nations wipe them from the face of the earth, or in your terminology romove them from the page of history, brilliant and you wonder why they are very defensive to their own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 So what you are saying then is they are not allowed to defend themselves and let the other nations wipe them from the face of the earth, or in your terminology romove them from the page of history, brilliant and you wonder why they are very defensive to their own people. Yep, I think he's just proved our point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 The reason why Israel sat on their hands, despite wanting to get down and dirty with the Iraqis, was because the US were sat firmly on top of them and holding them back. The US knew their coalition (which included a number of Arab countries) would disintegrate & lose support if the Israelis started firing. And they had every right in the book to defend themselves but were man enough to listen to others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Oh dear, you really should get your facts straight before getting on your soap box. Think about it..... C'mon alps, doddisalegend makes a perfectly good point and you're asking him to think about it? The Falklands might be a bad example, as they've never actually belonged to the Argies, but the rest of his argument still stands. Why do the Jewish people have an automatic claim to a land long abandoned and settled by others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 And they had every right in the book to defend themselves but were man enough to listen to others Yeah, doesnt exactly fit the Western stereotype of insane, blood-thirsty, agressive "Yiddos", does it ?? The people of Israel are as civilized and as moral as those from any Western country. But they carry a horrific emotional scar, and they know that their neighbours would like to repeat the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 C'mon alps, doddisalegend makes a perfectly good point and you're asking him to think about it? The Falklands might be a bad example, as they've never actually belonged to the Argies, but the rest of his argument still stands. Why do the Jewish people have an automatic claim to a land long abandoned and settled by others? Did they ever vacate it ? Did they ever renounce their claim to it ? Was Palestine ever a sovereign state ? Did the most power nation on earth for the first part of the last century not legitimise their claim and set their nation up, followed rapidly by the rest of the world recongising their state ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Oh dear, you really should get your facts straight before getting on your soap box. Think about it..... Not at all my facts are perfectly good. Argentina has a far greater claim to the falklands through both Spanish claims (pre Argentine independence) and the 1822 declaration of the united proviences to the Falkland islands than Israel does to Palestine thanks to the kingdom of Judah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 So what you are saying then is they are not allowed to defend themselves and let the other nations wipe them from the face of the earth, or in your terminology romove them from the page of history, brilliant and you wonder why they are very defensive to their own people. No, what I said was this:- And of course Israel should be able to defend themselves. The problem is that their responses are completely disproportionate. You're having enough problems conjuring up words to explain your own point of view. Don't stretch yourself by deciding what I've said too, particularly when what I've actually said is the complete opposite. Yep, I think he's just proved our point... When you actually arrive at a point that you can successfully defend, I may be able to prove it. Til then, you're out of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 No, what I said was this:- You're having enough problems conjuring up words to explain your own point of view. Don't stretch yourself by deciding what I've said too, particularly when what I've actually said is the complete opposite. When you actually arrive at a point that you can successfully defend, I may be able to prove it. Til then, you're out of luck. You mean a point you are willing to recognise as such because you have a smart-arse answer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 (edited) Fact is if it's OK for Israel to have nukes then it's OK for Iran. Just because the west are friendly with Israel makes no difference, we have no right to say who has what weapons based on who we like. If Iran has nukes the US will just have to accept the fact and shut the **** up. The US know that with the inevitable upcoming energy crisis any country with large oil and gas reserves are going to hold all the cards. I actually hope Iran has nukes because it might warn the US off another oil based massacre. Edited 13 October, 2011 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Not at all my facts are perfectly good. Argentina has a far greater claim to the falklands through both Spanish claims (pre Argentine independence) and the 1822 declaration of the united proviences to the Falkland islands than Israel does to Palestine thanks to the kingdom of Judah. Argentina has NO claim to the Falkands whatsoever because NO Argentinians have ever lived there. Jews have a valid claim to Israel (the legal name of the area) because they have maintained their claim over time and Jews have actually lived there throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Did they ever vacate it ? Did they ever renounce their claim to it ? Was Palestine ever a sovereign state ? Did the most power nation on earth for the first part of the last century not legitimise their claim and set their nation up, followed rapidly by the rest of the world recongising their state ? 1) yes they did (scattered to the four winds by babylon,Persia and Rome) 2) yes when they left (intrestingly most of the european jewish population that went to Israel after the war were probably related to the Khazars a turkish people living on the russain steps who adopted Judaism in the 670s AD and had never been anywhere near palestine) 3) well the British goverment promised Palestine it to the Arabs in 1915 in return for help againt the Ottoman Turkish empire (sadly they lied and decided to keep it for themselves). 4) so if the US decided to give the UK to France and the UN agreed it would be OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Did they ever vacate it ? Did they ever renounce their claim to it ? Was Palestine ever a sovereign state ? Did the most power nation on earth for the first part of the last century not legitimise their claim and set their nation up, followed rapidly by the rest of the world recongising their state ? Millions of Israelis did vacate their ancestral homeland over the course of centuries, so yes, they did vacate it. It's called the Jewish diaspora. Small numbers of Jewish people did persist in areas like Galilee, but the place was under Islamic rule for 1300 years. Who would actually make the claim? Palestine was never a sovereign state - always part of some empire or another. No matter - it's not germane to the argument. Still doesn't explain why the Israelis have a right to land that they vacated ( and they did vacate almost all of the country ). Your last point, which I presume refers to the Balfour accords, doesn't make a lick of sense either. Our empire did a lot of stuff when it was the foremost world power. Was all of it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 You mean a point you are willing to recognise as such because you have a smart-arse answer ? No, I mean something that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Jews have a valid claim to Israel Limited only to the 1967 borders, not the stolen parts which they occupy/have occupied. On what basis can they have those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 1) yes they did (scattered to the four winds by babylon,Persia and Rome) 2) yes when they left (intrestingly most of the european jewish population that went to Israel after the war were probably related to the Khazars a turkish people living on the russain steps who adopted Judaism in the 670s AD and had never been anywhere near palestine) 3) well the British goverment promised Palestine it to the Arabs in 1915 in return for help againt the Ottoman Turkish empire (sadly they lied and decided to keep it for themselves). 4) so if the US decided to give the UK to France and the UN agreed it would be OK? Millions of Israelis did vacate their ancestral homeland over the course of centuries, so yes, they did vacate it. It's called the Jewish diaspora. Small numbers of Jewish people did persist in areas like Galilee, but the place was under Islamic rule for 1300 years. Who would actually make the claim? Palestine was never a sovereign state - always part of some empire or another. No matter - it's not germane to the argument. Still doesn't explain why the Israelis have a right to land that they vacated ( and they did vacate almost all of the country ). Your last point, which I presume refers to the Balfour accords, doesn't make a lick of sense either. Our empire did a lot of stuff when it was the foremost world power. Was all of it right? Well, according to the potted history of Israel that I've just read, the area has been continuously populated with Jews for the last 3000-4000 years, and the 1500 years of relatively low numbers in the region were mainly due to Arab aggression... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Limited only to the 1967 borders, not the stolen parts which they occupy/have occupied. On what basis can they have those? As I wrote earlier, they've occupied those areas due to the spectacular failure or unwillingness of those neighbouring countries and the UN to stop the slaughter of their innocent citizens by the firing of missile into their urban areas from them... If its a war, its a war. I dont see why Israel should have to fight agression with one hand tied behind its back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Well, according to the potted history of Israel that I've just read, the area has been continuously populated with Jews for the last 3000-4000 years, and the 1500 years of relatively low numbers in the region were mainly due to Arab aggression... Yes, just as the US has been continously populated with Native Americans. Do you expect them to get their land back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 As I wrote earlier, they've occupied those areas due to the spectacular failure or unwillingness of those neighbouring countries and the UN to stop the slaughter of their innocent citizens by the firing of missile into their urban areas from them... If its a war, its a war. I dont see why Israel should have to fight agression with one hand tied behind its back. Explain why occupying land with citizens serves a legitimate military purpose. Why not just a military presence? As for slaughter, well, that's just laughable. Let me know how many citizens the Israelis have killed or maimed in comparison to Gaza/West Bank Palestinians. The concept of proportionality appears lost on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Yes, just as the US has been continously populated with Native Americans. Do you expect them to get their land back? Excuse me ? Are we actually talking about a general principle, or just about giving you a further opportunity to attack the US ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Argentina has NO claim to the Falkands whatsoever because NO Argentinians have ever lived there. Jews have a valid claim to Israel (the legal name of the area) because they have maintained their claim over time and Jews have actually lived there throughout. What an interesting view you have on how countries decide on who owns what. The Falklands where first occupied by France (before the British) they sold their rights to the Falklands to Spain when argentina gained independence from Spain she gained the islands formaly belonging to Spain. Using your critera the island should go to France becuase they had the first settlement on the falkland islands. I'd wonder how you'd react if all the people who lived in your house before you turrned up demanding rights becuase they lived there before you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Explain why occupying land with citizens serves a legitimate military purpose. Why not just a military presence? Well, you clearly dont have a clue about demographics. Wherever there is a large collection of people, such as military bases, there are business opportunities, children to be schooled, hosptials, etc, etc. As for slaughter, well, that's just laughable. Let me know how many citizens the Israelis have killed or maimed in comparison to Gaza/West Bank Palestinians. The concept of proportionality appears lost on you. And I have already indicated the concept of proportionality is frequently lost on the Israelis too. It doesnt mean I cannot support the principle of what they are trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Excuse me ? Are we actually talking about a general principle, or just about giving you a further opportunity to attack the US ? General principle. Your claim is that the Israelis have a right to their own state because they've had some of their number in parts of the region since time immemorial. How is that any different from the situation with the Native Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 What an interesting view you have on how countries decide on who owns what. The Falklands where first occupied by France (before the British) they sold their rights to the Falklands to Spain when argentina gained independence from Spain she gained the islands formaly belonging to Spain. Using your critera the island should go to France becuase they had the first settlement on the falkland islands. I'd wonder how you'd react if all the people who lived in your house before you turrned up demanding rights becuase they lived there before you? Nope, still struggling with your garbage. The Union of River Plate (forerunner of modern-day Argy-land) completely abandoned the islands in 1811. The settlement set up in 1840 (and continuously since them) is British. And Argentina did nothing about sovereignty for over 100 years hence. So, to continue with your pathetic analogy, if I were to abandon my house for 29 years, I couldnt exactly bleat 100 years later if squatters set up home and claim it, and about 5 or 6 generations have been born and died there in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Well, you clearly dont have a clue about demographics. Wherever there is a large collection of people, such as military bases, there are business opportunities, children to be schooled, hosptials, etc, etc. And I have already indicated the concept of proportionality is frequently lost on the Israelis too. It doesnt mean I cannot support the principle of what they are trying to achieve. You're unreal mate. I fail to see as a matter of principle how it can be right to occupy land belonging to another. Simple as that. You seem to be saying that if Israel are occupying for military purposes then they may as well fill their boots and move thousands of people in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 General principle. Your claim is that the Israelis have a right to their own state because they've had some of their number in parts of the region since time immemorial. How is that any different from the situation with the Native Americans? I would much rather that the Palestinians and Israel peacefully co-existed in the same land, as the modern-day Americans do with the natives, or the way modern-day Aussies do now with the Aborigines. But if the "persecuted" weaker minority resort to violence to further their claims, they can hardly complain if they get ostracised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 You're unreal mate. I fail to see as a matter of principle how it can be right to occupy land belonging to another. Simple as that. You seem to be saying that if Israel are occupying for military purposes then they may as well fill their boots and move thousands of people in. Yeah, it really is that simple to you, isnt it ? I mean, sod all those Israelis murdered by missiles from those areas, and the lack of action by the governments of those areas when formal diplomatic complaints were logged, eh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 I would much rather that the Palestinians and Israel peacefully co-existed in the same land, as the modern-day Americans do with the natives, or the way modern-day Aussies do now with the Aborigines. But if the "persecuted" weaker minority resort to violence to further their claims, they can hardly complain if they get ostracised. Well, on that, we're agreed. Problem is that elements of both sides just don't want it to happen, and the lunatics seem to be running the asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 So, to continue with your pathetic analogy, if I were to abandon my house for 29 years, I couldnt exactly bleat 100 years later if squatters set up home and claim it, and about 5 or 6 generations have been born and died there in between. Interesting, because most Israelis in Israel are descended from people who did exactly that. Just for the record, are you trying to prove your own point or doddisalegend's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Fact is if it's OK for Israel to have nukes then it's OK for Iran. Just because the west are friendly with Israel makes no difference, we have no right to say who has what weapons based on who we like. If Iran has nukes the US will just have to accept the fact and shut the **** up. The US know that with the inevitable upcoming energy crisis any country with large oil and gas reserves are going to hold all the cards. I actually hope Iran has nukes because it might warn the US off another oil based massacre. The difference is that the Iranians will use the nuke as a threat to Israel and others who wish to invade. The Israeli's on the other hand use it as a retaliation tactic, to ensure that no countries decide to properly attack them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 The difference is that the Iranians will use the nuke as a threat to Israel and others who wish to invade. The Israeli's on the other hand use it as a retaliation tactic, to ensure that no countries decide to properly attack them. Erm, are they not the same thing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Yeah, it really is that simple to you, isnt it ? I mean, sod all those Israelis murdered by missiles from those areas, and the lack of action by the governments of those areas when formal diplomatic complaints were logged, eh ? That has nothing to do with citizen occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Erm, are they not the same thing ? No. One is a form of attack, the other a form of defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 C'mon alps, doddisalegend makes a perfectly good point and you're asking him to think about it? The Falklands might be a bad example, as they've never actually belonged to the Argies, but the rest of his argument still stands. Why do the Jewish people have an automatic claim to a land long abandoned and settled by others? I don't think Jews abandoned their land out of choice. Have you never heard of the Diaspora? They were basically kicked off it by a succession of empires, from the Romans to the Ottomans. But they never entirely abandoned it. All trogh out the Diaspora, there were always Jews living in Eretz Israel, mostly at the behest of whoever was occupying it at the time. It's that determination never to be kicked off their land, or kicked around by other people that has made Israelis what they are. It wasn't WWII that solely brought about the foundation of the secular State of Israel. Don't forget the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which outlined the desirability of founding a Jewish Homeland. Between 1917 and 1948 enough land was acquired by Jews to form a state when statehood was declared. Where did that land come from? Most of it was bought (legally) from the land-owning Arab Effendi families, who were quite happy to sell it to Jews. They are probably the same people who are now claiming that the land is now illegally occupied, and the State of Israel should never have been established. Yes, I have Israeli relatives. And if you have ever been there, you would understand their attitude. But whatever ills you ascribe to Israel - and they are not entirely innocent - it is still the only true democracy in the Middle East where everybody has a vote. Even the Arab residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 No. One is a form of attack, the other a form of defence. I'm with alps on this point, at least. I don't get the distinction between the two cases you've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 What an interesting view you have on how countries decide on who owns what. The Falklands where first occupied by France (before the British) they sold their rights to the Falklands to Spain when argentina gained independence from Spain she gained the islands formaly belonging to Spain. Using your critera the island should go to France becuase they had the first settlement on the falkland islands. I'd wonder how you'd react if all the people who lived in your house before you turrned up demanding rights becuase they lived there before you? Sorry to intrude in the argument which is really about Iran and Israel, but you brought up the Falklands, and you can't just write stuff that over-simpified and have it go unchallenged. The only real 'legal' claim Argentina has to the Falklands is effectively based on the Pope 'giving' all of South America to Spain in the 15th century , when he divided up the entire western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. The River Plate province was a Spanish colony and when it gained independence it claimed the Islands, because supposedly they were part of the Spanish Papal declaration, though not named as such, because they hadn't even been discovered by then! First settlement on the Islands is disputed. There are also claims of much earlier English landings. Any selling of the Islands by France to Spain has no legal basis; France did not have sovereignity to sell. Most histories imply more that the few French settlers were frightened off by Spain. The River Plate settlers were there only intermittently (coming after both French and British settlers) and the last lot were finally expelled for piracy on their seal/whaling ships by the Americans in 1820 something. (Bear in mind that America was NOT an ally of Britain then. In fact we'd been at war with America from 1812-1814) English settlers have lived there continuously from 1833, with earlier settlements dating back to before anyone from the Province of the River Plate had even claimed the Islands. All this took place before the country of Argentina even existed. Modern Argentina does include parts of the old United Province of the River Plate, but then so do Uruguay and Bolivia. The wikipedia entry is surprisingly good, and relatively unbiased if you want a potted history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands I imagine Argentinians and current Islanders have changed it back and forth so many times, that it has reached an uneasy compromise statis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Until Israel is reined in and the Palestinian people are given back the West Bank then there will never be peace in the region. Alas, the Jewish lobby in the USA is to powerful to allow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Well, you clearly dont have a clue about demographics. Wherever there is a large collection of people, such as military bases, there are business opportunities, children to be schooled, hosptials, etc, etc. Wow, you get a load of bull**** written on this forum every day but this is priceless. Israel is illegally annexing large sections of Palestinian land not because of the extreme religious views of many of its settlers ("it's our land, the old testament says so"), and not because the Israeli government want to irrevocably change the 'facts on the ground' so that a return to 1967 borders is impossible, and not because a large section of the Israeli economy is based on the settler's building boom. No it is because wherever you get large groups of soldiers you inevitably get hospitals and schools, retail parks and condo developments. In fact this is exactly what has followed the NATO forces in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't it? Thousands of US and UK civilians are now living in settlements in Iraq and Afghanistan along with churches, schools, hospitals and leisure facilities. Wait - this hasn't happened, surely not! It's fine to back one side over another, but just because you back one side doesn't mean you should go blind to their faults and crimes. The middle-east is full of shades of grey you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Why do the yanks have to always be in a war with someone? They ploughed into Iraq and left the country in arguably a worse state than it was in before, they'll pull out of Afghanistan without winning either. They must have wasted trillions of dollars on pointless wars they haven't one. Money that no doubt, could rescue their domestic economic woes. They've been doing in for years. Look at Vietnam, a completely pointless war. What annoys me even more is the Government will probably find billions of pounds all of a sudden to send our own troops in. Shame this money couldn't be used to offset cuts, improve public services and kickstart private enterprise instead of being flushed down the loo. A rare moment of agreement with Mr Garrett. Eloquent and accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 The reason why Israel sat on their hands, despite wanting to get down and dirty with the Iraqis, was because the US were sat firmly on top of them and holding them back. The US knew their coalition (which included a number of Arab countries) would disintegrate & lose support if the Israelis started firing. Thats true. The US were effectively paying Israel to stay out of it, they (the States) had massive levels of patriot missile cover shooting down the scuds as they came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Sorry to intrude in the argument which is really about Iran and Israel, but you brought up the Falklands, and you can't just write stuff that over-simpified and have it go unchallenged. The only real 'legal' claim Argentina has to the Falklands is effectively based on the Pope 'giving' all of South America to Spain in the 15th century , when he divided up the entire western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. The River Plate province was a Spanish colony and when it gained independence it claimed the Islands, because supposedly they were part of the Spanish Papal declaration, though not named as such, because they hadn't even been discovered by then! So they do have a claim then First settlement on the Islands is disputed. There are also claims of much earlier English landings. Any selling of the Islands by France to Spain has no legal basis; France did not have sovereignity to sell. Most histories imply more that the few French settlers were frightened off by Spain. How was Frances right any less than Britains at that time? The River Plate settlers were there only intermittently (coming after both French and British settlers) and the last lot were finally expelled for piracy on their seal/whaling ships by the Americans in 1820 something. (Bear in mind that America was NOT an ally of Britain then. In fact we'd been at war with America from 1812-1814) English settlers have lived there continuously from 1833, with earlier settlements dating back to before anyone from the Province of the River Plate had even claimed the Islands. But there was any attempted argie colony in 1832 which the british moved on when they re-colonised in 1833 All this took place before the country of Argentina even existed. Modern Argentina does include parts of the old United Province of the River Plate, but then so do Uruguay and Bolivia. Argentina declared independence in 1816 The wikipedia entry is surprisingly good, and relatively unbiased if you want a potted history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands I imagine Argentinians and current Islanders have changed it back and forth so many times, that it has reached an uneasy compromise statis. Not sure anything you've written changes the point I was making in the beginning. It's semantics Argentina did exist as a spanish colony whether it was as the vice royalty of the river plate or under another name. As you pointed out the pope gave the falklands to spain even if he didn't know it by extention you can trace a clear path of possible ownership to Argentina as an ex spanish colony if you want (and Argentina does). It's a strong link? not really no ( though no worse than the British one of "well we left in 1774 but we left a plaque so it's still ours until we came back in 1833 and kicked out some Argentinains who were already there" argument) My orginal point (probably not well put across granted) is countries can use history to make up any convluted reason they like to claim something as thier's. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is a hell of a lot less stupid than Israel's claim to palestine based on it being their ancient homeland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 doddsi...you are missing the point the islanders WANT/CHOOSE to remain with us...surely in a democratic society we should respect that and defend them like we would with any other british dependancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 doddsi...you are missing the point the islanders WANT/CHOOSE to remain with us...surely in a democratic society we should respect that and defend them like we would with any other british dependancy Since when have rights and deomcracy been extended to British subjects in the eyes of the loony left intelligensia ? Rights and democracy are for put-upon foreginers. I absolute despise "we know best" arrogance from the bleeding-heart liberal mongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Since when have rights and deomcracy been extended to British subjects in the eyes of the loony left intelligensia ? Rights and democracy are for put-upon foreginers. I absolute despise "we know best" arrogance from the bleeding-heart liberal mongs. Looks like Dune-itis has spread. You despise "we know best" arrogance and yet call those with a different opinion "bleeding-heart liberal mongs". Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 October, 2011 Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Looks like Dune-itis has spread. You despise "we know best" arrogance and yet call those with a different opinion "bleeding-heart liberal mongs". Great stuff. Yep, you got it. The left have utterly f**ked this country up over the last 15 years. W*nkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 October, 2011 Yep, you got it. The left have utterly f**ked this country up over the last 15 years. W*nkers. There is no left or right anymore, at least not in Government. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now