34 children dead in israeli missile attack

HAHA that was funny

you think?
I have a rather unusually large dick.....with few thorns, just like a rose and..it smells good. The bloke should smell it if he doesn't believe me.

Why your illegal grandpa said that when a good broom with a splinter on its head rips his ass it feels sooo good? Talk about kink man! Hoo Haa!

Why your illegal grandpa said that when a good broom with a splinter on its head rips his ass it feels sooo good? Talk about kink man! Hoo Haa!

Why your illegal grandpa said that when a good broom with a splinter on its head rips his ass it feels sooo good? Talk about kink man! Hoo Haa!

Not everybody likes the cum in his mouth like you.. ya know I hear that love feels warm in the mouth doesn't it huh?

yeah keep trying. we'll just sit here watch them kill children and then whine about the suicide attacks for the rest of the century.

I like that one episode of the original Star Trek series where the meek peaceful inhabitants of that one planet turn out to be so powerful that they simply will not let the Klingons and the federation go to war or fight each other on any level. Ships can't move, guns won't work, no one can even throw a punch....


*cough*.... okay carry on, I was just thinking out loud. :D

Whereas since the British began handing over power in the mid-east to the US, back in the 1920's, US foreign policy has been the exact opposite. It has had the sole focus of destabilizing the region.

It's a policy which in the short-term worked very well but had the nasty side effect of creating and building both arab nationalism and islamic fundamentalism. I know it is popular to demonize the imans, but it doesn't hurt to remember we have a president who got himself elected 2 years ago thanks to emotive rhetoric aimed at the basest prejudices of part of our population. Imagine what ambitious men can do with an audience which has real issues, such as the people of Iran on whom we let loose the Shah and then sent the CIA to train his death squads.

The other impact of three-quarters of a century of more or less covert meddling, was that by 2003 when such methods hadn't worked for several years, the Middle East was, by its standards, stable. Even the civil war in Lebanon was finally over.

Unfortunately, the countries sitting on the world's second and fourth largest oil reserves were firmly opposed to the US and the US-supported regimes holding the biggest and third-biggest reserves were likely within 5 years of being toppled. Thus it isn't much of a stretch to believe that the invasion of Iraq was no more no less than a switch from covert to overt meddling. Whether it was or not, we have certainly given the anti-US elements plenty more material.

Whatever the racists on one side may wish to believe, arabs at root are no more religious than zionists are baby-eaters. We created the opportunity for their less scrupulous men of religion to fire up audiences with anti-US and anti-Zionist tirades, while our own fundamentalists have to make do with abortion and homosexuality. Come to that, although I'm sure most Israelis imagine they manipulate the US and there may be some truth in that, Israel is the most effective tool the US has for promoting its mid-east policies.

This is not Star Trek and we don't have anyone who can simply switch off the violence over there. But if the US stopped turning up the heat every time things quieten down and leave Israel to fend for itself, we would be moving in the right direction. Sadly that isn't much more likely than the Star Trek solution since the US economy depends on oil and we have been almost as busy p*ssing off Latin America as we have the Middle East. We should probably be grateful that right now at least, there isn't a story the US public would buy to justify any military adventures there...

So Jayeff, I take it you saw that episode?

It was a good one eh?

:D

This thread proves GFY is as volatile as the Middle East.

That was a good episode.

Now try an Addams Family reference and see what kind of response you'll get out of Jayeff.

I'm sure I could come up with something

I'm just happy whenever I can be his inspiration. :D

ok, I'll entertain this idea.
Tomorrow USA stops helping Israel,
5 years from now Israel is overrun by Hezbollah/Hamas/Syria/Iran and Israelies leave the country.

Where does this put the world 10 years from now? Care to extrapolate?

Calling that an idea personalizes it too much, particularly since I already said it is no more likely to happen than that someone suddenly develops Organian powers. Let's just call it one of several possibilities and one I mentioned mainly because to defeat demons we must first identify them correctly. It is very easy to point the finger at religious zealots on both sides, but we rarely stop to ask who or what gave them an audience.

Your grim forecast is one potential scenario, although the withdrawal of the US isn't suddenly going to turn Israel into a military midget, nor the Arab countries into cohesive fighting forces. But an Israel which had to make political and economic choices it could sustain alone, would almost certainly have to be more flexible, while removing from the scene the main impetus behind Islamic fundamentalism would cool the Arabs over time. In short, there would be a dynamic towards your forecast, concurrent with a dynamic towards an accomodation for co-existence. The actual outcome would depend on which moved the faster.

But consider the alternative. Those two dynamics have been in existence since the 1930's and they will continue to exist until a resolution is reached. But while the ability of Israel to defend itself, by itself, arguably peaked 40 years ago, the barriers in the way of a peaceful solution continue to gain momentum. Thus your forecast becomes more and more likely as time passes, making the future existence of Israel increasingly dependent on US support.

Can you guarantee that support 50 years from now, when the "friendly" regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will almost certainly have been overthrown and we have finally been forced either to start using diplomacy to ensure our oil supply, or else we shall have learned how to live without cheap oil. Certainly the Zionist lobby is influential, but I don't believe it would be nearly as effective if what it wanted hadn't coincided with US interests.

Another question: how is the Zionist ideal served if you are right and by extension, Israel only exists courtesy of the US? That makes Israel not a safe homeland for the Jews, but no less a ghetto, dependent for its well-being on outside forces, than Jewish communities in other countries have been down the centuries.

As I wrote, this is almost certainly all moot because US foreign policy has never had much use for diplomacy. Much as we create laws virtually overnight and spend years waiting for the courts to decide whether they can be enforced, we preferred fast routes to our needs abroad and ignored the longer term consequences. Now we are stuck with the reality that our oil-based economy likely couldn't survive the time it would take for diplomacy to chip away at the damage we have done ourselves in the past. Thus we must escalate or be damned, hence Afghanistan and Iraq and billions of dollars each year in aid for Israel.

Tomorrow, who knows? Iran is the next obvious target and certainly we appear to be pushing public opinion to support such a move. But cowboy diplomacy has a cost for those who practise it too and right now I don't see the US having either the political will nor the military ability for another occupation. I suspect Iran can breathe more or less easily for perhaps 5 or 10 years, providing it isn't tempted to take advantage of the current situation and up the stakes too dramatically.

There is not going to be the "next occupation". Bush Sr was right in his approach to Iraq:
destroy, throw back 20 years and if only Bush Jr did it again - we wouldn't have the problem in the Middle East we have now.

P.S. other than that I find your analytical skills quite strong and enjoy your analysis, even if I don't agree with it. It's logical and well put.

The Middle East is the last place where i'd move. I want Brazil and its ethanol cars, cheap girls and little bikinis ))))

jayeff, Religous fundamentaists have been around for centurys, united states policy in the mideast cannot be blamed for all the those conflicts. The problem in the Mideast has nothing to do with moderate arab nations. eygpt has managed to hold its peace with israel for many years now. the issue comes down to Islamic Fundimentaists... This is just another stage in the world. when its over thier will be another group rising up to proclaim there god is the only god....

Its very simple to see that arab nations with out the islamic extremeists can thrive quite well looks at dubai. they are a prime example.

Once the arab moderates desised to remove the fundimentaists things can be better in the mideast.

BTW i am not giving a pass to other fundimentalists, christian , jewish etc etc. but at this point in history islamic fundemetalists are main on the scope

here's a popular google video link. And to pre-empt all the replies please view with this disclaimer:

1) Yes, it is biased - just like loose change or fahrenheit 9/11 or any other politically motivated 'film'
2) Yes, it uses film-making techniques to drive home a political agenda, just the same as Michael Moore, etc..
3) Yes, it has interviews with highly controversial people like Daniel Pipes, so please take it all with a grain of salt.

So please save your breath, I am just a messenger.. saw it on the google top 100 for the first time last night new at number 12 - which is a pretty high debut.

Here is the link

Etc...

Everything you wrote might be perceived as true, except that in essence you are drawing conclusions only from the "finished product" and only as it suits you.

There is a huge difference between local conflicts and those which impact on the world, just as religious fundamentalism practised by small congregations is entirely different from large audiences raised and roused more by manipulation of their discontent than because of their religiosity. Similarly it is grossly misleading to talk about exceptions as if they are typical: Egypt has a special story and the emirates are also a case on their own.

Underneath what we see today is a region which for centuries was a commercial crossroads in which the conflicts you wrote existed, but which in purely practical terms were of no interest to the world at large. Then the British (primarily) carved up the region's map at the end of WW1, after which Jewish immigration and US foreign policy stirred the pot further.

Anything is possible, so it could be entirely coincidental that the downward spiral into violence covers that same period and the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism, the latter part of it. Of course, that conclusion would imply that US foreign policy makers were totally, but totally ineffective as well as being short-sighted.

Helllloooo Berlitz, please can you .... translate ?

CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it CHEck it


http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=640333