Quote Originally Posted by FutureEmperor
Once again i never said that, i was talking about Jewish rule, although no one was pushed out of their land, there were people who were prevented from crossing the border, because the border was closed. This is very significant.
Was the border closed to everbody except who was initially placed there? I doubt it. It makes much more sense that the border was closed as a security measure after Israel started getting attacked.
Ok maybe California is not the most sane state, but it is very progressive, its acctually trying to do SOME good.
Let me let you in on something. Change is not always progress. Just because they're trying to change things doesn't mean they're progressive -- the way they're going, it's quite the opposite, actually.
Acctually The holy land was (starting from 1AD) (roughly) Pagan (under the romans) Orthadox (under the byzantines) and Islamic (under the turkish).It was only christian for very short periods and even then it wasnt completely christian.
Nobody said it was Christian. The point was that Islam forcefully took over.
World War two was started with the Invasion of Poland, the state of the jews in Nazi Germany was unknown about or was ignored.
Some of both, but there was a reason it was ignored. Until Germany attacked another country, it was Germany's problem to deal with. Remember, there wasn't really any UN to step in and deal with it (like they would have anyway, hah), and the League of Nations really wasn't prepared to handle such an issue.
Any ways When was there a nation state of Isreal before the 1940's? before the 1000's, And had there been no Holocaust would there be a Nation state of Isreal today?
There would still be a Jewish section of Palestine, which was created after WWI, if my memory serves me correctly. In the early 1920s, "Palestine" was split into two parts, which would become Israel and Jordan. (War Angel, I'm sure you know more than I do about this, please correct me if I'm wrong.) ... ... ... You know what, nevermind, just look here for the history behind it.
I was talking about radical right wing politicians in the west who believe bombing all the Islamic countries is a very good idea.
Right, because we just carpet-bomb Islamic countries at random, right?
And there are plenty of Isreali volunteers in thier armed forces which spend alot of time initiating preemptive strikes against mostly innocent targets. (Although the methods used by suicide bombers is by far worse, But either way KILLING IS WRONG)
Their presence alone initiates conflict, because the Muslims around there can't stand Jews having their own territory. And don't tell me you honestly believe, with no credible sources, that Israelis actually target innocent civilians in preemptive attacks? Please, please, tell me you're not serious. Or at least try to back up this outrageous claim. (And no, Al-Jezeera doesn't count as a credible source.)
Well think about it, did we do them a favour by surrounding them with resentful enemies? did we stop blood shed, or are we just purpetuating a cycle of genocide
Was it our fault the surrounding Muslims won't accept their presence? Are you going to blame us (well, probably Britain, really) because of that? We didn't surround them with anything, we put them back in their homeland. Their enemies surrounded them by themselves.
Sure the jews were the ultimate victims, but now they are fighting for thier lives in hostile territory, and who put them their? wouldnt more lives of been spared if territory in a more hospitable country was given to them?
Would they rather be somewhere other than their historical homeland and the area the majority of their religion centers around? It's where they belong, it's their homeland. They shouldn't be anywhere else, they should be able to live peacefully where they are.
"A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons is a bad enough idea. A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons and the means, motive, and opportunity to provide terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons is a terrible idea." Now that sounds slightly racist you might want to watch what you say, whats the difference between a hostile Muslim country to us and A hostile christian country to them, look at the world from thier point of view.
I'm getting tired of these ignorant "racism" accusations. Tell me, when was the last time a non-Muslim country used WMDs? When was the last time a non-Muslim country supported terrorism? Killed hundreds of thousands, or hell even hundreds, of its own people? Used tactics of torture (torture, not abuse or mistreatment) for entertainment? Threatened to destroy another country? Threatened to wipe out every person of a certain ethnicity or religion? North Korea is the only one anywhere close to that. Face the facts, the Middle East is a problem, run mostly by extremist Muslim countries. As I've already said multiple times, truth is not racist. Name one Christian country, or any non-Muslim country apart from North Korea, that is as much of a threat to the world as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. etc.
Do you think the UN would be able to do something? The UN would be controlled by this super power, most other countries would be this superpowers pupets, and any opposition would be ruthlessly annihilated, and the crazy thing is, is that i could happen with out any body knowing.
You've also been watching too many movies, haven't you? It wouldn't happen anyway, so you don't have to worry about it. Nobody is going to give up their nuclear weapons, especially if it ever comes down to just a few countries left with them and they're an even bigger bargaining chip.
And you havent thought the invading army idea through yet, If an invading agressor army attacked and was nuked, the families of those who were killed would be angry at both the invaders and at the defenders (at the defenders because they used the bomb to kill thier family, and at the invaders because they sent their family into this situation.)
Only the ignorant familes. Not all families of soldiers are like Cindy Sheehan, you know.
So then the Invading army has three options. A) If the Invading army then used its own nuclear weapons to destroy this defending nation, the Invading army would then be seen as an Aggresive force, and its leader could possibly be named a war criminal. The aggressor army has just eliminated all its allies, for what, bombing the crap out of another tiny nation, that they cant use due to the radiation, and the loss of life would be catastrophic. No Civil country would allow it.
It would be a counterattack to a nuclear strike anyway, so I'm sure most countries that mattered would at least understand. The initial nuclear attack would be much more devastating to world views than the counterattack would.
B) Continue the invasion with conventional weapons, allowing for greater loss of life, and dissention in the ranks (no soldier wants to even be near a nuclear blast, and nobody wants thier lives thrown away.)
Nuclear weapons would probably just strengthen the resolve of the soldiers and the "invading" forces, resulting in them being more "careless" to protect innocent life.
C) the Invading army admits defeat or decares truce and the region and the home front decend into chaos as protest, and activist come out.
Or, rather, more accurately, the rest of the civilized world descends on the country that used the nuclear weapon and beats the hell out of them, controlling them for centuries into the future, and supports the victim country.

It's well-known. Using a nuclear weapon is a no-no. Not only does it assure (especially against somebody like the United States) that you'll get your ass handed to you, to put it lightly, it also provides the entire world with a reason not to respect you. If India or Pakistan used nukes on each other, I'm sure America would be bombing everything that country has that has anything at all to do with nuclear technology, and I'm sure we wouldn't be alone in doing it.
1)I think Isreal should have been made in another area of the world
Israel was re-formed where Israel should have been, and used to be. It's the only logical spot for it.
2)I believe that any type of killing is wrong
Yet you argue for things that lead to killing, and support those who kill as often and as brutally as possible.
3)the middle east was distablized by the creation of Isreal
The Middle East was destabilized for centuries, the creation of Israel didn't do anything but give them something else to be mad about. Another excuse.
4)Nuclear arms are only a good deturent and anyone can see that even radicalist, as long as the radicalist have something worth having, if a radical has nothing left, then you give them no choice.
"then you give them no choice"? So what, it's our fault if somebody uses nuclear weapons on us now? Like I said before, no country in their right mind would use nukes, but an extremist country (such as Iran) might provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.
5)You cant base modern politics on 2000 year old history as history tends to be bended and once again its history and applies differently to todays world.
That's right, forget all about history, it doesn't matter in today's world. [/sarcasm]
6)I hate organized religion because it just ends up leading to crap like this.
That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is nothing wrong with general organized religion, it's the extremism that's the problem. And when the majority of an entire region is controlled by extremism, that's a big problem.