Spurious George Posted June 20, 2007 #26 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Just to recapitulate... an early League of Nations recommendation about the British Mandate was that 75% of it should be allocated to the Palastinian Arabs, and the remaining 25% to the Arab and Semitic Jews. (all three groups had been living in the regions since God was a lad, so there was no reall "prior claim". ) Funny how when the rest of the Western world was living in countries where religion and state were seperated, and for good reason, Israel a state born out of religion popped up, isnt it? Throw that old dusty fairytale called God out the window and who's got the claim to that dry piece of land? The indigenous Arabs or the immigrating white European jews? Honestly I dont care who "God" gave the land to nor do I care if they fight over it for another 60 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted June 20, 2007 #27 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Funny how when the rest of the Western world was living in countries where religion and state were seperated, and for good reason, Israel a state born out of religion popped up, isnt it? Throw that old dusty fairytale called God out the window and who's got the claim to that dry piece of land? The indigenous Arabs or the immigrating white European jews? Honestly I dont care who "God" gave the land to nor do I care if they fight over it for another 60 years. Egads Catch .22... that is WAY below your normaly high standards of posting. Jews have been living in what geographers call "Palestine" for thousands of years. As I understand it (and I always rely on you to correct me), the Jewish State DOES seperate Religion from Governance... whillst recognising Judaism as the "national religion", it does not impose it or mandate aginst other religions. (.... kinda like my own Catbasket.. the UK..... we have the CoE as the 'official' religion, but it doesn't really amount to much politicaly). In the case of Israel, I don't think there is THAT much of an issue about 'church vs state'... after all, unlike their immidate neighbours, they allow free worship within their territories. In comparison, try going into Saudi Arabia (their neighbour to the south) with a Bible, and see how far you get. Oh - and what did you think of the 'Jimmy Carter evacuation' anecdote ? (scroll up) Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted June 20, 2007 #28 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Throw that old dusty fairytale called God out the window and who's got the claim to that dry piece of land? The indigenous Arabs or the immigrating white European jews? Jews have always been indigenous to the area. The Ottoman Empire sold huge tracts of land to European Jews that added to the Jewish population there. Anyway, I do not see racial claims to be any more valid than religious ones myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el midgetron Posted June 20, 2007 #29 Share Posted June 20, 2007 ps - Bush is and will be known as the worst president this country has had. fact. Bush or whoever he passes the torch to. But I know what you are saying, someones gonna take the fall. It's an interesting point. People tend to assume that a democracy is a good thing. Democracy can be a good thing but it is always mob rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurious George Posted June 20, 2007 #30 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Then my post must have been misunderstood, I dont drop the bar. I know Jews have been living in the area known as 'Palestine' for a long time, they've been living in Iran too... should we carve up Iran so there is a Jewish state there too, where Europeans can immigrate to? Or might that cause some problems? The only claim to that land by white Europeans is a dusty old book, a myth, a fairytale. Land of Israel The Land of Israel is a term and concept in Jewish thought concerning the historic and divinely ordained/given territory of the Jewish People. The Land of Israel and the State of Israel The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present: The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel I know that Israel isnt a theocracy but it is impossible to deny that the Bible and their Godly claim to that land had nothing to do with the creation of the state of Israel. This happening at a time where the civilized world had already learned that God and politics do not mix. And what has happened since? 60 years of warfare that still has no end in sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 20, 2007 #31 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I guess we have lots of efforts in establising a Palestinian State or country. How about the Palestinians simply building one? They claim they want one, but don't know how really. Even now they really can't hold onto whatever they have. Like I said, they been only there for more than a thousand years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 20, 2007 #32 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Egads Catch .22... that is WAY below your normaly high standards of posting. Jews have been living in what geographers call "Palestine" for thousands of years. As I understand it (and I always rely on you to correct me), the Jewish State DOES seperate Religion from Governance... whillst recognising Judaism as the "national religion", it does not impose it or mandate aginst other religions. (.... kinda like my own Catbasket.. the UK..... we have the CoE as the 'official' religion, but it doesn't really amount to much politicaly). In the case of Israel, I don't think there is THAT much of an issue about 'church vs state'... after all, unlike their immidate neighbours, they allow free worship within their territories. In comparison, try going into Saudi Arabia (their neighbour to the south) with a Bible, and see how far you get. Oh - and what did you think of the 'Jimmy Carter evacuation' anecdote ? (scroll up) Meow Purr. If I have been correctly keeping track...he has had "loads" of posting similar to this. He is a Jimmy Carter supporter....and then some. Jews have always been indigenous to the area. The Ottoman Empire sold huge tracts of land to European Jews that added to the Jewish population there. Anyway, I do not see racial claims to be any more valid than religious ones myself. Well........my old friend Bella.....how goes it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurious George Posted June 20, 2007 #33 Share Posted June 20, 2007 If I have been correctly keeping track...he has had "loads" of posting similar to this. He is a Jimmy Carter supporter....and then some. Oh look its my biggest fan Taco Burrito!! You post a lot of "loads" there too buddy... back for another ragdolling? By the way who's Jimmy Carter Could you tell me all about him? I anxiously await your reply but I'll have to check it out tomorrow, see my shift here is done, its time to go home. The International Leftist Commie Chavez Foundation cant afford to keep me online 24/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 20, 2007 #34 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Oh look its my biggest fan Taco Burrito!! You post a lot of "loads" there too buddy... back for another ragdolling? By the way who's Jimmy Carter Could you tell me all about him? I anxiously await your reply but I'll have to check it out tomorrow, see my shift here is done, its time to go home. The International Leftist Commie Chavez Foundation cant afford to keep me online 24/7. "Taco Burrito"..........Ok I can live with a few slurs. FYI burritos are from the US, not Mexico. Since I'm pointing out your ineptitude, and your shift is done.. I will do a little OT. Who was Jimma Cartar? The worst president of the United States in recorded history in terms of economics, foreign policy and just plain old management. The only question is how a terd like that ever got elected, or better yet...what kind of excrement still supports him and his Alzheimer's disease. Nothing he says should be taken seriously by thinking adults..........upp...then there is .22 Look I already vented on that loser Carter today. Enough!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stardrive Posted June 21, 2007 #35 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Did'nt the TVA build a dam with his teeth? Edited June 21, 2007 by Stardrive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted June 21, 2007 #36 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Let's see. Carter = brought peace to the area. more stability Bush = has the middle east in a mess. ps - Bush is and will be known as the worst president this country has had. fact. Carter brought peace to the middle east? Not that I know of. As I remember it, the Iranians took U.S. ambassiders hostage, there was that little thing called the OPEC oil embargo, the 20% interest rates, the Presidential approval rating in the 20's.... Need I say more? Everytime Carter opens his mouth, diarhea spews forth. Does any thinking, rational person even listen to his diatribes?Now, as a man, I genuinely like ole Carter. He donates his time and his name to things like Habitat for Humanity. I can respect that. Other than that, he was tossed out of office on his rear basically by one phrase, Reagan said that a voter should ask themselves if they were better off at that time than they were four years before. He was a failed president and now he is still running his mouth. As though a thinking person would take HIS advice on how to run the nation. Adolph Hitler was (initially) democraticly elected as well.Communism was also supported by the majority in Russia in 1917. The will of the majority in another country is not always in Americas best interest. I anxiously await your reply but I'll have to check it out tomorrow, see my shift here is done, its time to go home. The International Leftist Commie Chavez Foundation cant afford to keep me online 24/7.So what? You pretend to work, they pretend to pay. Just go take yourself an extra banana out of petty cash! (I couldn't resist that one!) Edited June 21, 2007 by Lord Umbarger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 21, 2007 #37 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Sorry Re, I couldn't resist. Does this mean were not friends? I would be so broken. The Fetch can eat me. Edited June 21, 2007 by Aztec Warrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted June 21, 2007 #38 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) While I don't consider Carter one of the best presidents, he is far from the worst. That distinction goes to the current resident of the white house. With all the Carter bashing here I think you've forgotten a few things - just a couple here from the wiki - One of Carter's most important accomplishments as President were the Camp David Accords on September 17, 1978. They were a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt negotiated by President Carter, which followed up on earlier negotiations conducted in the Middle East. Among the most significant honors were the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He did have a fair amount of accomplishments and a fair amount of failures. He has been an outstanding statesman in his post-presidency. You're so blinded by bigotry that you can't see it. Edited June 21, 2007 by ninjadude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essene Posted June 21, 2007 #39 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) OMG, this cartoon is a freaking crack up, great post. Folks, these pals are the same people who celebrated when the twin towers were attacked on 9/11. As the original poster stated "Hitler was democratically elected also".You have a bunch of pals who elected a group of terrorists as their leaders really tells you something. Its just a matter of time before Iran gets the bomb and trust me they will use it. If they do, half of the middle east will be glass and really in a way I pity them because not all are terrorist but many support them and they think the world will let them do as they wish and destroy western civilization. They will have a rude awakening. I predict the casualties will rival WW 2's and it wont be the west that gets the short end of the stick. And the yellow kitty, I know from experience never mess with a hissing growling cat (glad your on our side). Sorry Re, I couldn't resist. Does this mean were not friends? I would be so broken. The Fetch can eat me. Edited June 21, 2007 by Essene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted June 21, 2007 #40 Share Posted June 21, 2007 One of Carter's most important accomplishments as President were the Camp David Accords on September 17, 1978. They were a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt negotiated by President Carter, which followed up on earlier negotiations conducted in the Middle East Among the most significant honors were the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002And in what way did any of that actually benefit the average American who was because of Carter paying a 20something percent interest rate on his mortgage while sitting in gas lines? You do realize that it was during his administration that we invented the "Misery Index", right?...And here it is! The misery index! He has been an outstanding statesman in his post-presidency.Now here, I agree with you totally. He is by far, the best Ex-President the U.S. had ever had. Hey, Aztec, I hope you don't mind but, I had to steal that cartoon for my private collection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted June 21, 2007 #41 Share Posted June 21, 2007 And in what way did any of that actually benefit the average American Gee I don't know, like maybe a full out war between Israel and Egypt that would have cost us more than it already does (because we bankroll Israel), and because it was furthering peace! Geez! Are you neocons so caught up in war that you want the whole world burning?! It's unbeleivable the amount of warmongering I see on this site. Peace is like a four letter word. I get the impression it's a bunch of kids who have no clue how much war has and is screwing up our country. It's all a video game. Or old folks with really short memories. Instead of glorifying peace and really Christian ideals, I see glorifying war as the only answer and hatred as a way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted June 21, 2007 #42 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Gee I don't know, like maybe a full out war between Israel and Egypt that would have cost us more than it already doesThe Camp David aAccords did not end a war. All they actually agreed on was that Egypt would formaly acknoledge Israels right to exist. You neglect to remember, Egypt was not the only nation in the region that attacked Israel and Syria still does not think that Israel has a right to exist. It was an improvement but, it was not the be-all end-all that many make it out to be. Besides, by staving off a war at that time, we may have only allowed it to fester until there was no Soviet Union to hold their reigns. Obviously, things are worse now. Geez! Are you neocons so caught up in war that you want the whole world burning?!It's better to burn part of it than to wait until they are able to burn the whole thing. Ever read the Koran? It is their goalto conquor the world and convert everyone to Islam. Now, it's unlikely that htey could actually do that but, that is not going to stop a bunch of them from trying. Don't believe me? Google "Al Qaeda", "WTC", "9/11", "1972 Olympics In Berlin", "Suicide bombers", etc......... It's unbeleivable the amount of warmongering I see on this site.What you see as warmongering might simply be the fact that many people are aware that it is better to cut the tree down now than after it grows over the house. It is obvious that sooner or later there will be a clash of the cultures. Would it be better to fight it now or wait until they may have nukes? Instead of glorifying peace and really Christian ideals...you will find that there are very few christians here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 21, 2007 #43 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) While I don't consider Carter one of the best presidents, he is far from the worst. That distinction goes to the current resident of the white house. With all the Carter bashing here I think you've forgotten a few things - just a couple here from the wiki - He did have a fair amount of accomplishments and a fair amount of failures. He has been an outstanding statesman in his post-presidency. You're so blinded by bigotry that you can't see it. Wrong! It was Anwar Sadat who made it happen and eventually cost him his life for it, and as you can see after his death the Egyptian preserved the peace and don't want anymore war. Carter was merely the referee. Carter is a good man, but as a President his ways and ideas were simply not suited for the job. Noble peace prize he did get for he agrees with the Liberals on appeasement with our enemies. Edited June 21, 2007 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essene Posted June 21, 2007 #44 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Bush is pretty bad I must admit, he may go down as the second worst president. But Carter will go down as the worst ever, he is a turn coat and joined the enemy. Man, he is being put together big time, I really think he has lost his mind. While I don't consider Carter one of the best presidents, he is far from the worst. That distinction goes to the current resident of the white house. With all the Carter bashing here I think you've forgotten a few things - just a couple here from the wiki - He did have a fair amount of accomplishments and a fair amount of failures. He has been an outstanding statesman in his post-presidency. You're so blinded by bigotry that you can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted June 21, 2007 #45 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Take note, Carter didn't get a Nobel for letting the U.S. economy go all to hell. I still can't think of one thing that was better for Americans while he was in office. Edit: post number 3,100! Yeah ME! Edited June 21, 2007 by Lord Umbarger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 21, 2007 #46 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Bush is pretty bad I must admit, he may go down as the second worst president. But Carter will go down as the worst ever, he is a turn coat and joined the enemy. Man, he is being put together big time, I really think he has lost his mind. Bush the 2nd worst? This is just the the call of the Bush haters, and when History is written it is the result of his policies, NOT the polls and liberal blogs that will determine it. Economy on his Term is good, if no attack happens when his term ends then Security of the country is good, he is a 2 term President, if Iraq is able to preserve the new IRAQ that the Iraqis voted for, that will be part of his legacy. 2nd worst??? It's just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted June 21, 2007 #47 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I would have thought that Hoover would've been in the bottom five. Remember all the "Hoover-villes" during the depression that started under his watch? Nixon might go down as pretty low but, he did break the ice with China. O.K., maybe he breaks even there. Clinton got us tied up with a U.N. police action in Bosnia, who by the way were not even suspected of having WMD's. Cut our military by a third. Refused to take custody of Bin Laden even after we all knew that he bankrolled the first attack on the WTC. Anybody remember the pictures of masked law enforcement pointing guns at a crying Elian Gonzolas? Need I mention all thoses women that he "didn't" have sexual relations with? Reagan was president when the Iran/Contra scandel happened. Although it was never proven that he gave the order, it still soiled him. Nonetheless, it was done to help preserve freedom in Central America. I guess we can give him half credit for that one. He did give ole Ghadaffi a nice hot cup of STHU. Speaking of which, he's been pretty quiet ever since. Still, no one wanted Carter back after one term. He left the nation far worse off than it had been when he took office and there is not getting around that. I know that a MOD is probably going to have to snip this one so, I'll apologize ahead of time. Monica Lewinski goes into a dry cleaners and says "I've got something I need cleaned". The Dry cleaner, hard of hearing replies, "Eh? Come again?". Monica says "Oh-no, it's mustard this time!". I know, I know. That was just wrong. Funny but, still wrong. Edited June 21, 2007 by Lord Umbarger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted June 21, 2007 #48 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Bush the 2nd worst? This is just the the call of the Bush haters, and when History is written it is the result of his policies, NOT the polls and liberal blogs that will determine it. Economy on his Term is good, if no attack happens when his term ends then Security of the country is good, he is a 2 term President, if Iraq is able to preserve the new IRAQ that the Iraqis voted for, that will be part of his legacy. 2nd worst??? It's just wishful thinking. Interesting point Aroces. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK Reagan was portrayed as a deranged power mad warmonger (but at the same time, senile and not in control of anything). Slowly but surely, the image is changing as people slowly begin to realise the long-term impact that his policies towards confrontation with the Soviet Union had. Consider Star Wars.... derided as an expensive fantasy (and a failure).... but it drove the Soviet Union to try and emulate it (or rather, to emulate what they THOUGHT it might become), and this bankrupted their military. So yes indeed, be cautious of juding G. Bush's legacy based on contemporary headlines. Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essene Posted June 21, 2007 #49 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I vote almost always republican and I will vote for who is the best for the job regardless of any affiliation except communists and socialist's. As for Bush going to war in Iraq, I agree saddam should have been booted but for one he didn't go in with the amount of troupes needed in the first place in which his top military expert stated we needed 500,000 troupes. What does Bush do? He fires the top general because he stated what he "knew" was going to be needed in Iraq. What a nimrod Bush is, then on top of that he single handedly p***ed off most of the world with the lies on going in. Although, I agree saddam should have been booted no doubt at all, but he went in with a third of the troupes needed and we lost our backing from our allies. We went from most of the world on our side to most of the world against us. HE BLEW IT!!! Bush the 2nd worst? This is just the the call of the Bush haters, and when History is written it is the result of his policies, NOT the polls and liberal blogs that will determine it. Economy on his Term is good, if no attack happens when his term ends then Security of the country is good, he is a 2 term President, if Iraq is able to preserve the new IRAQ that the Iraqis voted for, that will be part of his legacy. 2nd worst??? It's just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 21, 2007 #50 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I vote almost always republican and I will vote for who is the best for the job regardless of any affiliation except communists and socialist's. As for Bush going to war in Iraq, I agree saddam should have been booted but for one he didn't go in with the amount of troupes needed in the first place in which his top military expert stated we needed 500,000 troupes. What does Bush do? He fires the top general because he stated what he "knew" was going to be needed in Iraq. What a nimrod Bush is, then on top of that he single handedly p***ed off most of the world with the lies on going in. Although, I agree saddam should have been booted no doubt at all, but he went in with a third of the troupes needed and we lost our backing from our allies. We went from most of the world on our side to most of the world against us. HE BLEW IT!!! The troops was enough to topple the Iraqi regime quite easily actually. That was the objective then. Now, the number of troops that is needed to keep the situation in hand is another matter, and actually who could have known until we actully are already in Iraq??? This thing that the World is against us is just led by the Left in america, they always say that whenever their preferred foreign policy is not implemented. Edited June 21, 2007 by AROCES 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