President Obama made a good deal

I think the rule of adverse possession would tend to favor the Palestinians. The Jews may have been there over 2000 years ago, but how is that relevant now? Did "God" give them the land? Who's "God"? The Palestinian "God"? Did anyone ask for their input? Who tortured the Jews in the 1930's and 40's? Germany, right? Why not give them a section of Germany? What about the other groups tortured by Hitler? Why don't they get their own country?

Even the Bible says the Jews weren't the original inhabitants of the land. "God" gave them that land after they left Egypt, or so they say. Did you know there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus? It never happened.


As far as Europeans occupying North America first, there is no evidence of that. There is evidence that they came and left, or quickly died out. This land belonged to Native Americans. We took it by conquest. Right or wrong, mostly wrong, but we conquered this land. Israel was handed their land by the U.S. and her international puppets. Why? There have been victims of genocide before and since. Where are their countries?


Now, I know Israel is not going anywhere, just like the Native Americans will never get the Black Hills back, even though it is theirs by treaty. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect the Middle East to joyously accept another US attempt to tell them how, and where, they are supposed to live.


The violence on both sides must stop. The Palestinians need to accept the fact they were screwed. The Israelis and the U.S. need to understand we screwed them. Only then will peace talks have any chance of success.

I think the rule of adverse possession would tend to favor the Palestinians. . Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If one quietly consulted the rank and file "Palestinians," the majority would probably be satisfied in peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation. Even today, Palestinians benefit from the presence of Israeli infrastructure and technical know-how.

The Israelis are blamed for the demise of the Palestinians by those who want to get rid of the Israelis. That prevents any form of meaningful neighborly co-existence. Their leaders use the blame to justify their incompetence.

The history will not decide the issues. The current events will. IMO the current circumstances are more about water than they are about anyone's God. If we were under siege along our Southern border with frequent shellings, rockets, and vest and car bombs our perspective might be somewhat different. It would be about "water"....not who was here first. There would also be a different response in D.C. regarding our "border security"! People in the interior would care about like they do now.

If one quietly consulted the rank and file "Palestinians," the majority would probably be satisfied in peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation. Even today, Palestinians benefit from the presence of Israeli infrastructure and technical know-how.

The Israelis are blamed for the demise of the Palestinians by those who want to get rid of the Israelis. That prevents any form of meaningful neighborly co-existence. Their leaders use the blame to justify their incompetence.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Would you like to post a link to go along with this bullshit? or are supposed to take your word for it?

Would you like to post a link to go along with this bullshit? or are supposed to take your word for it? Originally Posted by shanm

No.

No as to the second "question" based on my best interpretation of an incomplete one.

As UC would say: You are an "ignoramus"!!! And I think you said that yourself.

So you have now proven yourself to be an "ignoramus" based on your approved standards.

I too am quite skeptical of the so-called framework agreement with Iran, but two of your points are incorrect.

First, the Sunnis already have the bomb. Pakistan is predominantly Sunni and they exploded their first nuclear weapon back in 1998.

Second, it is nonsense to say the Camp David accords "accomplished nearly nothing". They have kept Egypt - the most populous Arab country - on the sidelines for almost four decades now. Without Egypt, there can be no large-scale, seriously threatening Arab war against Israel. Taking that off the table is clearly an accomplishment. Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't really buy those points.

I wouldn't call the Pakistani's weapons "Sunni" bombs, despite their being members of that sect. The sworn enemy of Pakistan is India. The Pakis developed it because the Indians developed it. They are squared off against Hindus, not so much Shia. That is a whole different fucked-up situation.

For the same reason, I don't think the Iranians care too much about the Paki bomb. The real Shia-Sunni feud is between Iran on the Shia side and Saudi Arabia and its vassal Sunni states in the Gulf. That's why the Iranians are embroiled in a hot war in Iraq and Syria (i.e., fighting ISIS) and in Yemen (Houthis vs. the Sunnis). That is the real theological battle.

If Iran got the bomb, I don't think that Saudi Arabia would feel consoled by the idea that Pakistan will come to their rescue - because they probably wouldn't. The Saudis are going to want their own bomb.

The Camp David accords were supposed to bring peace to the Middle East. It might have sidelined Egypt, but Egypt (or at least Sadat) already wanted OUT of the fight with Israel. They kept getting beat and were broke. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood then killed Sadat in retaliation.

The Syrians didn't sign the Camp David agreement, but they haven't fought the Israelis either. So, can we really credit the CD agreement with sidelining Egypt?

And the PLO simply turned to the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians - anybody really - for support in their terrorism against Israel.

And then there was the whole Lebanon thing throughout the 70s and 80s.

They are all fucked up people and their signatures on an agreement mean nearly nothing. It's only good for as long as the dictator who signed it stays in power.

Who is "we' ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

For someone who you previously claimed was "not worth the time" for you to respond to, you sure do one hell of a lot of responding to my posts.

Since I am obviously "worth the time" as opposed to "not worth the time," "we" are the 71 percenters who clearly felt that your favorite Shrubbie was "THE MOST UNPOPULAR (and incompetent) PRESIDENT IN MODERN U.S. HISTORY."

Yes, the current President included!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/

While on the subject of The Incompetent Shrub, how does it feel knowing that you (LLIdiot) voted for President Unpopular 4x's?

Does it make you feel like an Idiot?

For someone who you previously claimed was "not worth the time" for you to respond to, you sure do one hell of a lot of responding to my posts.

Since I am obviously "worth the time" as opposed to "not worth the time," "we" are the 71 percenters who clearly felt that your favorite Shrubbie was "THE MOST UNPOPULAR (and incompetent) PRESIDENT IN MODERN U.S. HISTORY."

Yes, the current President included!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/

While on the subject of The Incompetent Shrub, how does it feel knowing that you (LLIdiot) voted for President Unpopular 4x's?

Does it make you feel like an Idiot? Originally Posted by bigtex

More of your puerile repetition I see....

Your intellect has no chance up against LexusLover. He is twice as smart as you and whips out original analysis on a regular basis, and all you can do is repeat something stupid that only you and your childish friends laugh at the first few times, and even they lose interest in your vapid and ignorant "points" after the 25th time you bore us all with it.

Your intellect has no chance up against LexusLover. He is twice as smart as you and whips out original analysis on a regular basis. Originally Posted by DSK

Come on home brother. Come on home. No more hiding.

More of your puerile repetition I see....

Your intellect has no chance up against LexusLover. He is twice as smart as you and whips out original analysis on a regular basis, and all you can do is repeat something stupid that only you and your childish friends laugh at the first few times, and even they lose interest in your vapid and ignorant "points" after the 25th time you bore us all with it. Originally Posted by DSK

Thanks JLIdiot, errrr DSKIdiot!

If I'm boring you, you can always finish your 5 year's in exile.

No.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

As I expected. If you have nothing but baseless conjecture to contribute, why open your trap at all?
Your butt-boys (especially JDMoron) seem to be doing fine by themselves on that front.

I think the rule of adverse possession would tend to favor the Palestinians. The Jews may have been there over 2000 years ago, but how is that relevant now? Did "God" give them the land? Who's "God"? The Palestinian "God"? Did anyone ask for their input? Who tortured the Jews in the 1930's and 40's? Germany, right? Why not give them a section of Germany? What about the other groups tortured by Hitler? Why don't they get their own country?

Even the Bible says the Jews weren't the original inhabitants of the land. "God" gave them that land after they left Egypt, or so they say. Did you know there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus? It never happened.


As far as Europeans occupying North America first, there is no evidence of that. There is evidence that they came and left, or quickly died out. This land belonged to Native Americans. We took it by conquest. Right or wrong, mostly wrong, but we conquered this land. Israel was handed their land by the U.S. and her international puppets. Why? There have been victims of genocide before and since. Where are their countries?


Now, I know Israel is not going anywhere, just like the Native Americans will never get the Black Hills back, even though it is theirs by treaty. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect the Middle East to joyously accept another US attempt to tell them how, and where, they are supposed to live.


The violence on both sides must stop. The Palestinians need to accept the fact they were screwed. The Israelis and the U.S. need to understand we screwed them. Only then will peace talks have any chance of success. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is pretty much spot on. The Palestinians got hosed. Did the Jews get hosed during WW2? Obviously. Does that mean we should screw the Palestinians, which had nothing to do with it? No, but they got screwed just the same. The Palestinians have every right to be pissed.

I wouldn't call the Pakistani's weapons "Sunni" bombs, despite their being members of that sect. The sworn enemy of Pakistan is India. The Pakis developed it because the Indians developed it. They are squared off against Hindus, not so much Shia. That is a whole different fucked-up situation.

For the same reason, I don't think the Iranians care too much about the Paki bomb. The real Shia-Sunni feud is between Iran on the Shia side and Saudi Arabia and its vassal Sunni states in the Gulf. That's why the Iranians are embroiled in a hot war in Iraq and Syria (i.e., fighting ISIS) and in Yemen (Houthis vs. the Sunnis). That is the real theological battle.

If Iran got the bomb, I don't think that Saudi Arabia would feel consoled by the idea that Pakistan will come to their rescue - because they probably wouldn't. The Saudis are going to want their own bomb. Originally Posted by ExNYer

We all know Pakistan developed the bomb to catch up with its arch-enemy India. So what? Pakistan is still a predominantly Sunni country with close relations to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Surely you saw the news reports that the Saudis intend to purchase nukes from Pakistan if Iran gets the bomb. The Saudis won't rely on anyone else's nuclear umbrella and it would take them too long to build their own bomb. So their best strategic option is to buy what they need from Pakistan. The Iranians have to worry about this. It's one reason why Iran hasn't made an overt “break-out” dash for the bomb yet.

The Camp David accords were supposed to bring peace to the Middle East. It might have sidelined Egypt, but Egypt (or at least Sadat) already wanted OUT of the fight with Israel. They kept getting beat and were broke. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood then killed Sadat in retaliation.

The Syrians didn't sign the Camp David agreement, but they haven't fought the Israelis either. So, can we really credit the CD agreement with sidelining Egypt?

And the PLO simply turned to the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians - anybody really - for support in their terrorism against Israel.

And then there was the whole Lebanon thing throughout the 70s and 80s.

They are all fucked up people and their signatures on an agreement mean nearly nothing. It's only good for as long as the dictator who signed it stays in power. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Of course you have to give credit for sidelining Egypt all these years to the Camp David accords. The Egyptians are proud and nationalistic and they wanted the Sinai back. Beyond that, the accords gave them strong incentives to maintain the peace - not because of anyone's signatures, but so US economic and military aid would keep flowing their way. With Egypt sidelined, Syria wasn't about to launch another full-scale war against Israel – that would be suicide. Instead, they occupied Lebanon for 30 years and kept stirring the pot through proxies like Hezbollah.

The 1978 Camp David accords mainly resolved disputes between Israel and Egypt. That was a big accomplishment at the time. Sadat wasn't about to give the PLO and Yasir Arafat veto power over his ability to get the Sinai back and allow Egypt to recover from 3 disastrous wars (1947, 1967, 1973) it had already waged on behalf of the Palestinians. The agreement that was supposed to bring a broader peace to the Middle East was the 1993 Oslo accord.


.

[COLOR="Blue"]We all know Pakistan developed the bomb to catch up with its arch-enemy India. So what? Originally Posted by lustylad

Sure you knew that buddy!

In the future, please don't use "we". Not everyone here pretends(with hilarious consequences!) to be an insufferable know-it-all. Except for your friends LLIdiot and JDMoron. You are in the same category as that delusional old fool and the crack-pot conspiracy theorist (respectively and interchangeably).

Sure you knew that buddy!

In the future, please don't use "we". Not everyone here pretends(with hilarious consequences!) to be an insufferable know-it-all. Except for your friends LLIdiot and JDMoron. You are in the same category as that delusional old fool and the crack-pot conspiracy theorist (respectively and interchangeably). Originally Posted by shanm

I believe they each tested their first devices a little less than 4 years apart so they were both racing towards the same goal.

We all know Pakistan developed the bomb to catch up with its arch-enemy India. So what? Pakistan is still a predominantly Sunni country with close relations to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Surely you saw the news reports that the Saudis intend to purchase nukes from Pakistan if Iran gets the bomb. The Saudis won't rely on anyone else's nuclear umbrella and it would take them too long to build their own bomb. So their best strategic option is to buy what they need from Pakistan. The Iranians have to worry about this. It's one reason why Iran hasn't made an overt “break-out” dash for the bomb yet.





Of course you have to give credit for sidelining Egypt all these years to the Camp David accords. The Egyptians are proud and nationalistic and they wanted the Sinai back. Beyond that, the accords gave them strong incentives to maintain the peace - not because of anyone's signatures, but so US economic and military aid would keep flowing their way. With Egypt sidelined, Syria wasn't about to launch another full-scale war against Israel – that would be suicide. Instead, they occupied Lebanon for 30 years and kept stirring the pot through proxies like Hezbollah.

The 1978 Camp David accords mainly resolved disputes between Israel and Egypt. That was a big accomplishment at the time. Sadat wasn't about to give the PLO and Yasir Arafat veto power over his ability to get the Sinai back and allow Egypt to recover from 3 disastrous wars (1947, 1967, 1973) it had already waged on behalf of the Palestinians. The agreement that was supposed to bring a broader peace to the Middle East was the 1993 Oslo accord.


. Originally Posted by lustylad

It was the Oslo Accords of 93, under Clinton, that established the Palestinian Authority which led to elections. And 10 short years later, Hamas is elected and in the West they are scratching their heads and wondering why they would do such a thing. Of course it's business as usual. We are unable to see things from their perspective and thereby fail to truly grasp the entire situation. Then Hamas can't even get along with Fatah and the whole damn thing collapses. As long as neither side respects the right of the other to be there, it will never work.