Alex, have you seen "Green Zone" yet? I saw it tonight. I think you'll like it. I did, even if it is all just fantasy.

I was thinking of seeing that one too.

Although some reviewers here have called it Anti-USA?

I like action movies...

Glad to hear you said its good. Dang movies is like $50 USD here now for two.

Thats two tickets...& a couple of snacks......sheesh

Inflation hahah

why did we stop with only two? We could have bombed Japan back into the stone ages and we didn't.

I am not sure they could have continued with Atomic Weapons, did they have any left after Nagasaki?

They might have had one if any at all. That's why they chose a city and not a demonstration over the ocean. As it turns out, one city wasn't enough to get the surrender so it's obvious that exploding one over the ocean wouldn't have either.

I agree K' they had the option's of an incredible high casualty risk of a land invasion, or the option of a gambit regarding high civilian casualties.

Either way the U.S/Allies, in my opinion had little capability in a continued atomic bombing into the stone age of the Japanese mainland.

So they had a choice:

High military casualties ( their own ) or high Civilian casualties ( Japanese ) but the threat of bombing them into the stone age, just wasn't there.

..............

This sums it all up..."in the context of me accusing you of accusing me of being belligerant."

Now I am through with this silly discussion with you. You are infantile and clueless and, frankly, this is not worthy of my time. I will predict at least one more post with you beating your chest in mock protest however.

I will now watch a Thai soap opera and get much more from it than reading your inane posts.

Just to make yor prediction come true.....although there will be no chest beating and no mock protest.

I don't know exactly what you were summing up, but you were responsible for half of the exchange....actually, more than half because I da little choice but to respond to your insincerity/dishonesty.

You just can't admit you're wrong, even though it's there on this page. Never mind.

Since you think I'm infantile, and since you won't be responding, there's nothing to lose by having this last word.

Enjoy your Thai soap.

...............

You like to cherry-pick information highlighting what makes America (or Israel) look bad while skipping over anything that involves other countries. As UG said, you like to mislead.

Here's the best advice you'll ever get - IF you actually make it to Afghanistan, DO NOT let on to the people likely responsible for your security and life that you despise America so much. Being the invaders, rapists, baby killers and general all-around murders you believe them to be they might not treat you with the love & respect you probably believe you deserve. On the other hand, show some courage and go ahead and tell them exactly what you think.

Cherry-picking info is done from both sides. Quoting UG does not carry alot of weight.

See, that is where you et al have got me so wrong. I do not despise Americans, and have said so a few times. I have never said that I do.

I do know how to be diplomatic or silent when the situation calls for it....thanks for your advice.

As a side....I have regretfully decided not to go.

I do know how to be diplomatic or silent when the situation calls for it....

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

Richard Feynman

...............

You like to cherry-pick information highlighting what makes America (or Israel) look bad while skipping over anything that involves other countries. As UG said, you like to mislead.

Here's the best advice you'll ever get - IF you actually make it to Afghanistan, DO NOT let on to the people likely responsible for your security and life that you despise America so much. Being the invaders, rapists, baby killers and general all-around murders you believe them to be they might not treat you with the love & respect you probably believe you deserve. On the other hand, show some courage and go ahead and tell them exactly what you think.

Cherry-picking info is done from both sides. Quoting UG does not carry alot of weight.

See, that is where you et al have got me so wrong. I do not despise Americans, and have said so a few times. I have never said that I do.

I do know how to be diplomatic or silent when the situation calls for it....thanks for your advice.

As a side....I have regretfully decided not to go.

Actually, I should qualify my remark: there are SOME Americans that I despise....for being dishonest, for example. Donald Rumsfeld would be one example, (keeping things away from this forum). Or stupid.....I'll not mention any names because that always gets you guys going. . Unneccesary belligerance is another thing I despise, and some Americans are guilty of that (again, I'll keep it away from this forum)

But then, that's not limited to Americans.

And of course, there's idiots that know I can't read their posts without making a special effort to un-ignore them, yet probably still make their silly one-liners aimed at me.

Alex, have you seen "Green Zone" yet? I saw it tonight. I think you'll like it. I did, even if it is all just fantasy.

I was thinking of seeing that one too.

Although some reviewers here have called it Anti-USA?

I like action movies...

It can be seen as anti-American by some but I think it's more complex than that. Many of the characters aren't clear-cut white-hat good guys and black-hat baddies. One minute you're cheering for a guy to escape while at the same time you want him dead. On one hand it tells how intel was manipulated for war but on the other the ordinary Iraqi good guy isn't exactly sorry the Americans are there and if the story were true might have done something that led to the problems that followed the invasion. Some of the baddies are American but then again some of the good guys are too.

What he was trying to say had little to do with Israel and a lot more to do with terrorist groups and the countries that support them. Read section "B".

I did read section B and it is very clear that one of the reasons "we" are there is for example: international access to strategic resources, critical infrastructure, and markets; and bla bla bla.

To me that section of the document I posted is also easy to understand and as we do not know what exact words the general used during his meeting and powerpoint presentation based on what is stated in the document it cannot be ruled out that he mentioned the Israel Palestine issue or the foreign policy of Israel being used as one of the reasons that makes some people feel they have to act in some violent way.

I am almost sure if we could find a fair solution to solve the issue, (let's say a 50-50 share of the land and resources) things would be a lot better.

But whenever you mention the issue as being unfair and inhumane you are labeled an anti Semite, I believe Obama was called that just recently.

I was not aware of the movie "Green Zone" I will try and find it online. As you said there are good and bad persons on both sides, what is unsure is from what perspective is that been judged.

I would say that it is more likely that Obama is simply a naive, politically correct fool than an anti-Semite, but it almost amounts to the same thing as far as its effect on Israel.

I am not sure what you mean by that UG, could you please explain?

Obama wants to believe that the Palestinians are really interested in a two state solution - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and he is willing to jeopardize Israel's security in order to go down in history. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride,

Despite the believes of any party involved, would you agree with dividing the land in half as a reasonable option?

It can be seen as anti-American by some but I think it's more complex than that.

It usually is

Obama wants to believe that the Palestinians are really interested in a two state solution - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and he is willing to jeopardize Israel's security in order to go down in history. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride,

Some people wanted to be believe in an Irish two state solution ( term applied here for analogical reasoning ) despite all the evidence to the contrary and were willing to jeopardise several countries security in order to go down in history, or just do the Right Thing, or even to do Things Right.

If wishes were horses, buy me a saddle.............

Despite the believes of any party involved, would you agree with dividing the land in half as a reasonable option?

I would have before the Arab countries attacked Israel 4 times and were always badly beaten with almost no help from the US until the last official war in 1973.

Obama wants to believe that the Palestinians are really interested in a two state solution - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and he is willing to jeopardize Israel's security in order to go down in history. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride,

Some people wanted to be believe in an Irish two state solution ( term applied here for analogical reasoning ) despite all the evidence to the contrary and were willing to jeopardise several countries security in order to go down in history

That is an excellent example. These "people" were never able to achieve anything concrete until they renounced violence and they were never able to get rid of the other side. They could have accomplished what little they did long before they actually did and without all the bloodshed of innocents.

If the Palestinians had learned from their example, they would have had their own state long ago.

Despite the believes of any party involved, would you agree with dividing the land in half as a reasonable option?

I would have before the Arab countries attacked Israel 4 times and were always badly beaten with almost no help from the US until the last official war in 1973.

If the Arabs had won, would they have given half the land to the Israelis? To the victor go the spoils - at least back in those days. How much Israel decides to give up should depend on them, not what the losers think.

Not to mention a land-for-peace deal won't work as long as one side wants 100%. Guess which side that is? (hint: it's not the side that gave back the Gaza Strip).

As for Alex's question, who would determine which half each side gets? Could Israel give the Palestinians the half that is desert and keep the cities and green half for themselves?

It can be seen as anti-American by some but I think it's more complex than that.

It usually is

This one is even more complex than it usually is.

As for Alex's question, who would determine which half each side gets? Could Israel give the Palestinians the half that is desert and keep the cities and green half for themselves?

Well, that would only be "fair" as the Israelis created most of the green areas. The place was mostly barren desert before they started working the land.

i'm guessing the Dead Sea aint much use to anyone?

Judging from that topographical map it looks like the Israelis started out with a little more than half of the coastline and mountainous desert. The Palestinians should have quit there while they were ahead.

But I notice the UN Plan had the Palestinians broken up into three parts but the Israeli land was all connected. They didn't think that would be a problem?

The Palestinians should have quit there while they were ahead.

That's about it.

I find this document interesting! balfour declaration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.

The anniversary of the declaration, 2 November, is widely commemorated in Israel and among Jews in the Jewish diaspora as Balfour Day.

I am pretty sure that was before the Arabs declared war on the Jews four times.

Yup, where to slice the timeline?!

........

As for Alex's question, who would determine which half each side gets? Could Israel give the Palestinians the half that is desert and keep the cities and green half for themselves?

The reality is the converse of that. The Isrealis are taking the West Bank land that has water and leaving the desert to the Palestinians.

The white/green maps that WR posted, 1947-2005 show the stark reality.

More on the timeline dilemma...

Found a map of how the land supposed to have been divided by those ugly British and French.

Israel was attacked by Arab nations 4 times, hmmmmmmm.....Israel never (first) attacked any Arab nation in the time period of the last 100 years?

I find it a bit strange that Jews claim this portion of land and stating that for example they founded Jerusalem, Jerusalem apparently means: 'Built-up place of Shalem" some ancient God.

If someone can enlighten me on what the determining factor is in claiming ownership of a piece of land please feel free to do so.