Tigs

About Hawaii, let's get real, people. Each and every territory dispute in history has it's own unique history, and it's own unique qualities. If you're asking about Hawaii, to me the differences with Las Malvinas are stark. It is in the middle of a huge ocean, among the most remote land masses on earth. There is a significant land mass when you add all the islands. It has no proximity whatsoever to any other nation, large or small. Before foreigners came it had an old, rich distinct culture and a distinct NATIVE Hawaiian people. They had a monarchy structure. Then the foreigners came and raped them. So of course as an anti-colonialist, I would have liked to see Hawaii become it's own nation. If you think there are many similarities between Las Malvinas and Hawaii, I just don't see it. Totally different history.

Yes. a totally different History. but you have to apply YOUR arguments to both. So I think you agree that if the Hawaiians want to declare independance. they should be entitled to do so as that is their wish. So now the question of the Falkland people. They wish to remain British, so therefore they should be allowed to do so..?

You are an anti-colonialist. yet the Americans are Colonials. Just what do you think the Argentinians are? They are settlers, they are colonials, and the colony they took over, now known as Argentina was not in existance when the British Colonised the Falklands.

There is little more to discuss. The Falklands are British, they should remain British. It matters not a Jot who the Argentinians persuade otherwise (read, what oil consessions they will promise for a friendly vote!)

your reply concerning the Bush Blair persuasion of their people

That's a fair point but I think they knew they were lying about what they knew. I can't read minds and tell you how sincerely the Argies believe their own arguments.

Is a nonsense. You constantly change the goal posts, and from what you write, I can only assume that you have extensively studied Edward Lear, and have adopted his style. Of course Bush and Blair knew they were lying, the fact is with reference to your post, they persuaded everyone else that their falsehoods were true, including other Nations. You seem to think from your words in that post that the Argentinians must have some merit in their claim, because they have persuaded other nations and their own people that the Falklands belong to them. It is bullsh*t.

Jingthing

But the bottom line is that Argentina can indeed justify their ownership claims to the satisfaction of their own people and many other nations as well, so there must be some merit to their side of this.

And the bottom line is that George W Bush and Tony Bliar did indeed justify a war on Iraq due to WMDs to the satisfaction of their own people AND many other nations as well, so there must have been some merit to their side of the story in that then, according to you? ... NOT!

Personally, I think Hawaii should have been their own country, and that was certainly a possibility before. Each historical case is of course different.

You really are confused, so you believe Hawaiians should be left to run their own island and shouldnt have been colonised, but Falkland Islanders should be colonised against their will by an aggressor.

Tell that to the Hawaiian nationalists, mate.

http://current.com/g...ves-thrives.htm

Not an answer to Englander's point.

Tell us in your own words why you think Hawaiians should be allowed to decide their own fate, but the Falklanders should be forced to accept Argentinian rule against their will.

7by7

After 8 pages, that is the crux question. Come on Jingthing, answer that in your own words. Why should the citizens of Hawaii be allowed to decide their own fate, but the Falklanders be forced to accept Argentinian rule against their will?

A simple question, no side tracking, no excuses, just YOUR answer needed.

Well, if it was done for publicity or whatever it was a pretty poor show. Blaming the readers for not reading the story 'closely enough' has to be a first in journalism (I use the term journalism with great reservation), and is frankly remarkable. Clearly the story was not written well enough to communicate the message correctly at the intended readership. Perhaps a font resembling large handwriting in crayon would be more appropriate for the pages of this news rag, that way it would reach it's intended readership.

I also find that there must be a huge conflict of interest here in the role of HC and then owning a newspaper which comments on political issues in Thailand and other things such as local arrests and imprisonments of Brits perhaps, where the HC is privy to a lot of inside information other news sources are not, and has access to those behind bars. It just doesn't seem right.

Another point, if this was all cut and dry, black and white, good and evil, and not actually a real grey area as I believe, why did the USA express NEUTRALITY on the matter? If Argentina had no historical/ethical case at all, especially considering the closeness of Anglo-American relations and the relative chilliness of American-Argentinian relations, why didn't the US just say, we oppose the Argentinians on this?

OIL It's called 'hedging your bets'

Why are examples of US colonies absured? You say because the Falklands are in close proximity to Argentina. So your argument is on proximity. A good job Spain and Morocco don't destroy each other because they are only 15 miles apart. A good job Israel doesn't want to lay claim to Cyprus because it is only 225 miles away, or god forbid the Lebanon at 165 miles away. The Falklands are 250 miles away from Argentina

Hawaii, isn't close to the USA! Why have the USA claimed that? Hawaii is 2000 miles from the US mainland. How does that work Jingthing? The USA wanted a staging post in the middle of the pacific, so just ... took it' and it was inhabited, and it was British discovered. American businessmen just decided to overthrow the King kept it as a republic for 4 years and then the US claimed it as their own. If you look at a map of America Hawaii isn't even visible, it is 2000 miles away. Just how can it be a state. And lets face it this is modern day robbery, becoming a state in the 1950's.

Your arguments can only be rational if they can be applied to other cases, yet time and time again, you refuse to acknowledge that the very examples you are spouting, deem your very own countrymen as illegal occupiers of the largest landmass ever stolen. But your blinkers just don't allow you to see that? How sad to have 1 dimensional vision.

So, as I know you get lost in posts of more than 2 paragraphs. My question. How can the US lay legal claim to Hawaii?Given all your arguments concerning Argentina and the Falklands, and that Argentina is close to them, and Britain is not (a schoolboy argument don't you think?). How far away is too far away? Is 2000 miles too far to call an island a 'State'? Particularly when the locals want all those American asses of their Island.

By the way Jingthing, to get over the sentimentality of it all, the Argentinians don't give a crap about the Falkland Islands, they probably won't even set foot on them, they want to head straight for the oil fields, nothing else.

Jingthing

BTW, I don't appreciate your implication that Americans aren't aware of what happened to the Indians. Typical British pomposity there.

Well for that implication I apologise. But if you were aware,then when drawing your conclusions about what to say concerning the evils of Colonialism, i would have thought you would have taken that in to consideration. Pot calling Kettle and all that.

With a car and I had legal title to it, and some stranger claimed ownership, yes the facts support my claim. But if the car actually had a sketchy history and there were arguments that could be made that it wasn't mine, well, then the title may actually not be definitive proof.

But that is just it, you have legal title to it, as does Britain with the Falklands. If your car had had two previous owners but you had now purchased it and had legal title, could a previous owner claim it as there's? I don't think so, and lets not forget, Argentina was never a previous owner in this farce. There are historical deeds of title, and change of ownership that stretch back through the centuries, which I am sure a dedicated google wizard could find a copy of, to show legal rights.

Please put your logical hat on now and explain how an uninhabited set of islands, 250 miles out to sea, never discovered by anyone until the French happened upon them, can be claimed as theirs by a country that never even existed when the islands were discovered or indeed never existed during decades of British ownership. Forget the emotion, just look at those facts, you don't even have to consider legality, just the very basic facts.Come on Jingthing, fess up, what does your logical head tell you?

It really is a case of 'bwaaaaaah, they have found oil, we want it for our economy, tell them its ours

Jingthing

BTW, does a Manchester United supporter need to give a legal argument to you to justify his affinity towards that club?

Hardly a contentious issue is it, such as those described to you including this one concerning the Falklands, even if you are a Liverpool supporter.

What about the rights of the Argentinians who claim ownership? If their claims are valid, aren't they now being raped, having their oil money raped by British colonialists?

Point A: Their claims are not valid.

Point B: No they are not being rapes, because they do not own anything.

Point C: Now you are getting to the issue... OIL.

Point D: The North American Indians and Indigenous people all over the world are having their resources taken by Colonialists.

They think they own it. All of South America thinks they own it. You don't really think you own my car so that's a bad example. So there is a REAL conflict whether you like it or not and it ain't going away

Hang on a minute. I happen to think Moonraker's has a point. He thinks he owns your car so what right do you have to challenge that. He thinks he owns it, that seems good enough for me, and I for one offer him my unswerving support in his claim for your car. Would any other Thai Visa members also think that Moonrakers owns the Car that Jingthing says is his? Moonrakers, I feel for you on this one, you have my sympathy, please press ahead with the claim, in fact just send someone to take it, it is yours after all, Jingthing will say he paid for it and has had it a while, but take no bullsh*t, the car is definitely yours, because I know you would like it.. I support you.

I grew up on land once claimed by Britain. I think the islanders could live quite well as Argentinians and also massive compensation could be granted as part of a negotiation package. Surely the islanders have rights, but again, what about the oil wealth rape of resources Argentina deems to be theirs? You say Britain's claim is more valid and you are biased, they say their claim is more valid and they are biased, no wonder there was already a war about this.

Boy they really didn't do a good job of history in the US education system did they? No wonder so many people accept creationism in the states. Let me try and add to your education. You did not grow up (should I stop there?) in a land once claimed by Britain, you have missed a bit! You grew up in a land first claimed by the Vikings, then the Portugese, then the bun fight of European countries trying to get stuck in there. Britain essentially won that particular fight but was turfed out later by first generation Europeans (including rebel Brits) and second, third generation Europeans now claiming to be American. These "Americans' then continued the wholesale slaughter of a race of proud people, the North American Indians. You spent your childhood on a land stolen from another people and stained in their blood. You claim it as your own. Are you going to give it back with your lefty liberal principles? A situation far more severe than the Falklands, that only had birds on them when the French and Brits arrived. Funny how it is called the Land of the Free when the Local population were incarcerated and raped of their lands and livestock, and hardly the Home of the Brave considering the genocide committed against North American Indian and women. All proof really that brainwashing can occur in the years of early education.

The oil is 250 miles from Argentina, their international waters extend for 12 miles.

The claim by Britain is based on documented legal ownership, a bit like your car eh Jingthing?

edited to add

"That's fine. But to be clear, I don't KNOW the objective truth about this. Argentinians are convinced the FACTS support their claim, just like you did. Would just doing that convince you? Of course not."

Well if you don't know the objective facts then stay out of it. The difference is Jingthing, I know the objective facts for UK ownership, there are no Objective facts for Argentinian ownership. Show me one, just one Fact to prove ownership. One Fact to present to a court. You cannot and neither can the Argentinians.

"Just stating the FACTS say this or that doesn't cut it"

A truly remarkable statement that sums up everything you have said, and indeed your whole thought process.

Jingthing

Regarding the troll name calling, that is a call for the mods but of course I reject that. My affinity towards Argentina is real and sincere. If I didn't feel that and was posting about this simply to stir the pot, that would be trolling, but in this case, some of you are ganging up on me simply for being pro-Argentinian. That isn't fair to gang up on a minority, otherwise, why would anyone dare to express unpopular OPINIONS here?

You are missing the whole thing. I am certainly not upset with you for being Pro-Argentinian, and I am sure many other posters are the same. You feel you are being ganged up on because since your first comments on this subject you have failed at any time to give any reason for your subjective opinion. A reason for opinion is required for such contentious issues, can you understand that? You are allowed a different opinion that is your freedom, but amongst intelligent people you must be able to support that with rational argument, and at no time have you applied that.

If I were to make some off -the-cuff statement that I support all Mormons and that Gays should never be allowed to marry or indeed they should all be sent to hel_l, you would quite rightly be livid at such a comment and be demanding to know why I could come to such a conclusion. If I continually replied to you by saying "well I have never been a Mormon and know little about them, but Catholics think the same and so do some other Churches support it, so I am sympathetic towards them despite being non-religious , you would rightfully get mad. As it happens, I could never support the statement above with any form of rational argument, nor would I even wish to try, therefore I would never voice that opinion, nor condone it. You play a similar game with the Falklands issue. You know little or nothing about the history, you mistakenly believe that other South American countries support the move because of a loyalty to Argentina, therefore displaying little knowledge of the politics of that area, you appear to have little knowledge of the motivation of the Argentinian Government in this issue, and to top it off, when faced with all the Factual information to fill in all those gaps, you still choose to continue voicing an unsubstantiated, ill-informed opinion, that many people find very offensive. Furthermore, your last little gem about being a minority in this and 'why do people gang up on the minorities smacks of the same unnecessary cancer that plagues most minority groups. When they get tired or beat, they just play the victim.

I must be on Jingthings ignore list, either that or he is ignoring me

Alternatively you could just apologise for turning what was a good forum into a joke single handedly!! But I dont suppose that will happen!!

This thread has gone off the rails. Time to call the calvary.

Do you need instruction on how to put specific members that you don't appreciate on IGNORE? That might be your solution.

Here it is --

My Settings > Profile > Manage Ignored Users

Jingthing

That is not the point is it? If people present a differing side to an argument and provide a reason why they take that stance, there is no need for ignore buttons. When people throw in comments of varying quality and fail at any point to back them up with a logical rational argument then other readers will become rightfully upset with that person... in this case you! If you are a member of any forum and throw in comments designed to antagonise, and ,despite being given overwhelming evidence that your opinion must be wrong, due to fact, should you continue on your little game, you are nothing other than a Troll! Simple. On this thread you have adopted Troll status and it is not for the ignore button to sort out, and is too time consuming a job for the Mods. You have played your game, you have had your fun, now stop! Stop Trolling!

7by7

Ever wonder why the flag of Hawaii has the Union Flag incorporated into it? It's because it was a British protectorate before being annexed by the US. Using the 'logic' expounded by Jingthing the US should give it back to us; despite that probably being against the wishes of the majority of Hawaiians, certainly those who want independence from the USA!

The same 'logic' demands that Texas and California be returned to Mexico.

You present a relevant and compelling argument against Jingthing's diatribe, as I also tried to compare the logic of his argument with the 'theft' of the land that is now the United States. However, if anything becomes intellectually threatening and looks like making his argument silly, Jingthing adopts one of a couple of tactics, he says you are 'silly' or something along the lines of 'We are not talking about Hawai, or Texas or the US, we are talking about Las Malvinhas'!, thereby casting any time and effort you have spent trying to reason with him and his one-sided obscure logic firmly in the bin. He even uses separate one line posts to answer each individual instead of wrapping them up in one single post, I guess this is how you maintain racking up a post count in excess of 20 thousand and satisfying what appears to be some form of compulsive disorder! I can only conclude that Jingthing is the Troll King, as Ianbaggle appears to have realised in his posts above.

Ian

He is unintelligent but probably sits giggling to himself that he has managed to wind you up. As you said, very sad.

I am sure in all Argentinian courts, they would judge Argentinian rule of the islands LEGAL.

Oh for Gods sake! BUT IT CANNOT BE LEGAL! THEY HAVE NEVER EVER OWNED IT!!

They tried to claim it as part of the Spanish Colony, which was huge, but the Brits had the Falklands. International waters start 12 Miles of a countries coastline. The Falklands is 250 miles from Argentina, it is unlikely the 'natives' even knew of it's existence, and when Argentina became Argentina it was known of and wanted as part of Spanish booty. The Argentinians had never been there, they even sent an American to go and claim it. I can't make it simpler. It has been thought for years it was rich in resources, hence the 1982 debacle, and now they are starting again, no doubt confident with the dwindling UK military and the support both overt and covert from the USA.

Jingthing

However, on the macro level the historical drive of South Americans to expel all colonialists ain't chopped liver either, and overall, they won that fight. Argentina wants to finish it.

So there we are full circle again. The Americans as defined today are colonialists, would you give up (or expect your fellow countrymen to give up) the country and all move out because the North American Indians want the place back? I state again, there were no Argentinians on the Falkland islands. The Falkland Islands were NEVER part of Argentina. Perhaps just start by giving California back to the Mexicans.

I feel a greater affinity towards South Americans than Brits, sorry if that is a problem for some of you.

regardless of your affinity or what the South Americans would see as advantageous, there is NO legal right for them to claim the Falklands. End of Story

It sounds like you don't want to hear the opposite side voiced, and you don't have the right to demand that.

Inflammatory? Only if you perceive any dissent from the majority in that way (that's your issue, not the dissenters). Racist? No, of course not, what a cheap shot. Wrong? Maybe, that's an opinion, there is no objective reality in a clash like this.

N. Ireland is off topic and no I won't get into that here.

If you have good cause to think a particular post violates the rules here, use the REPORT button.

Jingthing, at no point have you given the opposite side of the story. You have been presented with clear legal evidence that the Falklands were never Argentinian, yet you say they should belong to them...Why? Explain why the island, full of British people and has been British for Hundreds of years, prior to which it never belonged to Argentina. Why, in your opinion should it now belong to Argentina? What legal, even Moral grounds are there for handing the Islands over when they have NEVER belonged to Argentina.

Oh but there is objective reality. It is the reality you have been presented with concerning History and the law, you are the one presenting a purely subjective argument.

Regards you refusing to comment on N. Ireland, you were the first person to bring the subject up on this thread. You mentioned the conflict, but now when challenged on it, you claim it is thread drift. So why did you mention it in the first place?

Onnut

If only! If there are any more public statements of lack of support for the UK concerning the Falklands, All Military assets should be withdrawn from Afghanistan with immediate effect, and all American military bases on UK soil should be told to pack up and leave.

The US would favour all that oil in the hands of the Argentinians, because it knows it has a chance of controlng them, and that all the operating licences will go to US oil giants.

Bast**d Politicians!!

Jingthing

Despite giving you a history lesson above the shows conclusively that Argentina has no claim to the Falklands, you still say

I simply feel North America should show solidarity with South America on this issue, that is all.

Without any logical reason, without any legal reason. Now that is just silly.

The reason posters will not stop with you

I said that already. You don't give it up, do you?

Is that just occasionally with you, it would be nice when you get it wrong, just to have the balls to say, 'hey guys, sorry I got it wrong, I misunderstood the situation'.

But you just can't can you. I provided you with a complete breakdown to the course of events with the Falklands, any rational person would see that Argentina is playing the spoilt school child and has zero legitimate claim. But you conveniently *once again( seem to ignore the facts.

It is pointless engaging someone in debate, that does not have the capacity or capability to work through a problem rationally.

It was not the war of the Malvinas, It was the war of the Falklands. I find it disrespectful of those people who burn the stars and stripes, I find it equally disrespectful when you replace the Union flag with that of the Argentinian flag.

Many more Argies died in that war than Brits. I am sad anyone died. However, respect is relative. Argentinians are offended to see a map of the Falklands with a UK flag; maps in their country show things they way I did and it would be very bad form there to show things any differently. So there are two sides and historically, this isn't over. If it offends you to see the other side represented, I suggest you have a very thin skin. Not my problem.

You've got a side. Good for you. That doesn't mean other people or other countries have to agree with your bias on the matter. Personally, I would side with the UK on most foreign policy matters, but not this one, and I wasn't thrilled with their historical behavior in Northern Ireland either. No country is perfect.

The Falklands were never part of the Republic of Argentina. Argentina first laid claim to The Falklands in the 1820s on the grounds that they had rights of succession from the Spanish, which they did not have. The Brits claimed the Islands in 1765, which was formally acknowledged by the Spanish, it was only some years later when the British Naval presence had to leave that the Spanish crept back in. Argentina was not even in existence until 1816 and not properly until 1853. The Falklands had NEVER belonged to Argentina, but had been owned by Spain. When the Brits learned of what was going on in the Falklands they returned and reminded the now forming nation of Argentina who owned the Islands and the Argentinians left with their tail between their legs. There was never even any Argentinian colony on the Islands. In the 1820's the Argentinians actually laid claim to the Falklands by employing an American named Daniel Jewitt to go there and place an Argentinian flag and claim it on their behalf. No Argentinians went there, and about 10 years later they were all turfed off the Islands by the Brits. So in a few hundred years of history between fighting between the Brits and Spanish, Argentina got an American to lay a claim which lasted a little over 10 years. There is no legitimate claim for the Islands by Argentina, other than proximity, and as already said, it is three times further from the Argentinian mainland than Cuba is from the USA. The Falklands are as Argentinian as Cuba is American.

As for not being thrilled with historical behaviour in NI, you make me laugh. How far back would you like to go? As has all ready been said in my post above, the behaviour of the settlers in the US was not exactly thrilling either. Using your arguments of logic, you have no right to call yourself a US citizen or have any claim to property and resources. 99% of Americans should leave and find somewhere else to live because the land was stolen from the Native population. Or is it convenient to overlook that? You can't have it both ways.

So just why do you believe that the Falkland Islands are Argentinian?

Can you expand on the British attack of Buenos Aires?

The British invasions of the Río de la Plata were a series of unsuccessful British attempts to seize control of the Spanish colonies located around the La Plata Basin in South America (today part of Argentina and Uruguay). The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France.

The invasions occurred in two phases. A detachment from the British Army occupied Buenos Aires for 46 days in 1806 before being expelled. In 1807, a second force occupied Montevideo, remaining for several months, and a third force made a second attempt to take Buenos Aires. After several days of street-fighting against the local militia and Spanish colonial army, in which half of the British forces were killed or wounded, the British were forced to withdraw.

The social effects of the invasions are among the causes of the May Revolution. The criollos, who had so far been denied the most important works, could get political strength in military roles. The successful resistance without military reinforcement from Spain fostered the desire of self-determination. An open cabildo and the Royal Audience of Buenos Aires deposed the viceroy Rafael de Sobremonte and designated instead the popular hero Santiago de Liniers, which was a complete unprecedented action: before that, the viceroy was only subject of the King of Spain himself, and no Spanish American had authority over him.

http://en.wikipedia....ADo_de_la_Plata

Buenos Aires was part of a Spanish colony, and the Bristish attacks were against the Spanish, nothing to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with the modern day territorial dispute over the Falklands.

Sounds more like that they are still upset they lost the war

If the islands belong to Britain then I see no reason why Britain cannot hold a training exercise in their waters. The Argentines should keep their noses out of our business and try to sort their crap out. I doubt very much that they would want to back up what they say for fear of getting a beating again.

Sadly Onut

The UK no longer has the resources to give the Argentinians a good beating again, and in light of the forthcoming defence cuts it would be almost impossible to launch another fleet to take on the Argentinains with all the other current commitments. The Argentinian Government are well aware of this, hence the attempt at slapping the UK in the face with a gauntlet.

Jingthing

As a son of the Americas, my feeling is this --

Followed by the Argentinian Flag and the Falklands is a little offensive, whether you are a son of the Americas or not. I take it that is a son of the North Americas? Tell me just what right do the descendants of white Europeans have to live in North America and claim it as there own? Absolutely no right whatsoever. The nation belongs to the indigenous population, who had the land stolen from them when it was plundered by a systematic display of genocide, rape and imprisonment by the invading forces (white Europeans). You can claim the USA as your own because you took it many centuries ago. Likewise the UK took the Falklands and were the final owners in a series of several. Since that day it has remained British. proximity to Argentinian mainland has nothing to do with it although it is over 250 miles, if proximity was a satisfying criteria then why doesn't the USA claim that Cuba in fact belongs to the USA because it is really close, 90 miles to be accurate? Your history is way off, highlighted by the following little gem.

History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them

Is this 3rd grade history or 10th grade? Can you expand on the British attack of Buenos Aires? And in any case why would a military commander send naval assets 10 000 miles to attack London, knowing they would never get within 1000 miles? But that is an aside, please tell me about the attack on Buenos Aires? I assume you are aware that the UK swore not to attack Argentinian soil, one reason the war was not over quicker, because that prevented the British bombing of Argentinian fighter and bomber aircraft assets that were pulled back to the main land and positioned in Argentinian Airbases. Airbases we could not attack because of the code of conduct we swore to abide by.

It was not the war of the Malvinas, It was the war of the Falklands. I find it disrespectful of those people who burn the stars and stripes, I find it equally disrespectful when you replace the Union flag with that of the Argentinian flag.

:crazy: :crazy:

Thanks for the intelligent response.

The big scary thing about this probable failure is that Iran and Israel appear headed for war. Iran is playing proxy war in the region already using Israel's neighbors. A significant peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was the biggest hope a wider Iran-Israel war could be avoided. There have been theories that the time pressure of the Iranian situation would make Israel more motivated to make these talks work, but so far, it doesn't seem so.

Jingthing

The whole thing has taken a sinister turn. The pressures and time frames you elude to are correct and (the cross over from the other thread on here) now the US have promised Israel the F35 the clock is ticking. Despite the fact Israel has nukes, their use would seem an almost impossibility, but in a head to head conventional war Iran has the capability to give Israel a real bruising, however with the F35 in use, most if not all of the Iranian air defence assets would be useless, leaving Iran completely vulnerable to having its ass kicked any time Israel chose to do so, which means if Iran are going to become aggressive they will need to do it soon. The downside of that is the US will pitch in with Israel, and as the US have been wanting to go in to Iran for some time, then a conflict initiated by a cornered Iran, would be a perfect way of kicking off an Invasion of Iran. F35's to Israel, a coincidence? I think not. All part of some major league scheming.

The only possible counter move is for Iran to buy 5th Generation fighters from Russia. Watch this space.

This post has been completed without reference to wikipedia or catastrophemonitor.com

he he.. too many people rely on wiki as 'their own voice' on many forums.. over the years i've found thaivisa is no exception.

careful Tigs, he may banish you to the tin foil brigade too...

No snags! I find them rather fetching attire for wear in the evenings I might start wearing one for when I am on TV, in order to stop some of the sites more infamous trolls and mentally unstable posters sucking my brains out, as they endeavour to do with regular monotony.

Is anyone in the entire world surprised?

Well should they be surprised? It is the only option the Arab League have. The ball for direct talks lies firmly in the Israeli court. Stop the illegal settlement building.

I agree they should freeze the settlements to continue the talks. Maybe they still will. I think the Israeli PM is under massive domestic pressure to allow the building, not that that's right, but both sides have domestic political considerations.

However, I was talking in more general terms about the prospect of these talks. I can't imagine anyone being optimistic about them, no matter your side bias if you have one.

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=190756

Thanks for the more detailed response. I agree completely. Thanks.

Syria's Foreign Minister says the deal threatens security in the region, local media reported Friday.

Syria, ally of Iran. 'Nuff said.

I don't get your post Jingthing. What do you mean 'nuff said'?

The fact is that the statement by Syria is absolutely correct. At the moment we have the Arab League all supporting the ceasation of direct talks between Palestine and Israel, because Israel continue with the building of illegal settlements. The US who are trying to broker the talks have tried getting mighty hard with Israel, who in turn have effectively turned to the US and said 'ram it'. Now whilst the US should be considering a hard line approach with this country that has failed to comply with UN Resolutions for years, it goes ahead with a massive upgrade program for Israeli air assets, which is just going to rub salt in to an already open wound.

Think about it.

Is anyone in the entire world surprised?

Well should they be surprised? It is the only option the Arab League have. The ball for direct talks lies firmly in the Israeli court. Stop the illegal settlement building.