Yisra'el

[gonorrhea]

So. Israel. Should the Jews be there? Should they have been settled there in the first place? What?
Personally, I'm quite pro-Zionist (as those of you who have debated with me can probably attest). I want to hear arguments for/against it and augment or refute them.
ALSO
I don't want Elegy or Ruhani posting here, as they'll just make the thread degenerate into a flamewar. Moderatorship, if you love me, keep them away by means of post deletion (or... whatever)!

[Algid]

I think not. You got some people who decided that Jerusalum was of wealthy city, and so that's where they'll live, so America let's them take control away from the original settlers. Besides Jews have always been nomadic.

[gonorrhea]

You're an idiot. Jews weren't nomads, they were refugees or traders. Furthermore it was Britain who established modern day Israel, not America. The Jews wanted to settle in Palestine because it was their traditional homeland and because they were being persecuted elsewhere (modern Zionism began with the Russian pogroms).

[Algid]

Yes they were, that's how they ended up in Egypt! Then they left out of slavery, and started selling jewels! But always constantly moving! Oh, and for the other stuff, I guess my mom lied to me.

[Tsunokiette]

Yes they were, that's how they ended up in Egypt! Then they left out of slavery, and started selling jewels! But always constantly moving! Oh, and for the other stuff, I guess my mom lied to me.

Lol. The Jews ended up in Egypt because a group decided to leave their homeland and try to prosper somewhere else. They ended up being slaves.

[sepiroth666]

Basically my thinking is the strong will win the country and Isreal can't keep this up for much longer(like 100+ years down the line) because there main support is the USA(which its power is declining) so unless they find new support there screwwed(far more people hate them than like). So basically all I got to say is expect 100+ more years of war and whoever has china on there side will win.

[gonorrhea]

Never underestimate a bunch of Jews with a will.
Never.

[cobragamer]

Personally I think the Jews should have the land. All the other major religions has at least one or more countries. Also I am afraid that if they do lose thier land it will cry out race destruction.

[gonorrhea]

Think about what you just said. Long and hard.

[Tsunokiette]

Think about what you just said. Long and hard.

...and?

[gonorrhea]

You're obviously not thinking long and hard enough, but that's not surprising since neither of you seem to have ever done this on ID.

[haloOfTheSun]

I don't want Elegy or Ruhani posting here, as they'll just make the thread degenerate into a flamewar. Moderatorship, if you love me, keep them away by means of post deletion (or... whatever)!

Gotcha. 

[Deliciously_Saucy]

I'm very pro-Jewish (and that's not just because of my lineage ties either) but I really couldn't take a stance on Zionism ideals without feeling hypocritical, while honestly I really do want the Jews to return to their homeland, I can't support the idea of the land simply being given back to them.

Many people claim ownership to land, but with all situations it would not work to give it back, take America or Australia. While some may consider Palestine to be a different situation I can't see it as one.

I am heavily in favour and support the Jews, but can't with this as I highly oppose the returning of land to the natives of my own country.

As for simply allowing the Jews into Palestine, I feel it is up to the country to decide, whether they make the right choice or not.

[Holkeye]

I think its none of our business to decide who gets what land. My life will not change either way, and I refuse to waste valuable time thinking about it, since my opinion on the subject doesn't matter one bit.

[Ravenshade]

I'll agree with DS on this subject.

Why should we interefere...unless we just bomb the lot of them and take it for ourselves? There's just no point. Same as my opinion on Iraq...pull out completely let the anarchy commence and when they've realized they're just killing each other and not getting anywhere, maybe they'll figure out something between themselves.

I mean we are just idiots who go and complicate things, but then again...if it wasn't for America with all their friendly fire....¬_¬ (I am british can't you tell)

[gonorrhea]

Why should we interefere...unless we just bomb the lot of them and take it for ourselves?

Why would we want it? :/

There's just no point. Same as my opinion on Iraq...pull out completely let the anarchy commence and when they've realized they're just killing each other and not getting anywhere, maybe they'll figure out something between themselves.

A few centuries from now, but problem is that'll destabilise the region even more and that can harm US interests and of course stabilising Iraq means fewer terrorists and anti-governmental/American guerillas.

I mean we are just idiots who go and complicate things, but then again...if it wasn't for America with all their friendly fire....¬_¬ (I am british can't you tell)

You're a half-brained  fuckwit if you think friendly fire is unavoidable in any conflict anywhere involving any nations. It's like massacres, rape, and plunder- it ain't pretty but it's part of war (not, to say, that I approve of it, and unlike these friendly fire would typically be a mistake).

oh, also
ITT JEWS AND ZIONISM. ITT IRAQ IS IRRELEVANT.

I've been on the Internets too much

[Ravenshade]

Why should we interefere...unless we just bomb the lot of them and take it for ourselves?

Why would we want it? :/

There's just no point. Same as my opinion on Iraq...pull out completely let the anarchy commence and when they've realized they're just killing each other and not getting anywhere, maybe they'll figure out something between themselves.

A few centuries from now, but problem is that'll destabilise the region even more and that can harm US interests and of course stabilising Iraq means fewer terrorists and anti-governmental/American guerillas.

I mean we are just idiots who go and complicate things, but then again...if it wasn't for America with all their friendly fire....¬_¬ (I am british can't you tell)

You're a half-brained  fuckwit if you think friendly fire is unavoidable in any conflict anywhere involving any nations. It's like massacres, rape, and plunder- it ain't pretty but it's part of war (not, to say, that I approve of it, and unlike these friendly fire would typically be a mistake).

oh, also
ITT JEWS AND ZIONISM. ITT IRAQ IS IRRELEVANT.

I've been on the Internets too much

Friendly fire unavoidable...true...getting killed more by the allies than the enemies....O.o...something wrong. Us British have had more soldiers killed by US troops, than the Iraqi insurgents (or so it seems) and according to the news they even went and killed a journalist...(on purpose...or I may have got the job title mixed up, but I know it's something along those lines)

Prove to me that US interference will produce less Terrorists...Bush speaks tough...he hasn't delivered and it seems to be the other way around. Every time Bush makes a move, someone somewhere gets bombed. (Can't say that Congress actually helps matters)

If we let them kill each other...there will be no terrorists to come out of Iraq. Because they'll all be dead.

Heck...I wish the American's weren't so hypocritical.

They put Sadam in charge of Iraq (more or less) and then had him executed for taking control (more or less).

But yeah...back on topic?

[gonorrhea]

Friendly fire unavoidable...true...getting killed more by the allies than the enemies....O.o...something wrong. Us British have had more soldiers killed by US troops, than the Iraqi insurgents (or so it seems) and according to the news they even went and killed a journalist...(on purpose...or I may have got the job title mixed up, but I know it's something along those lines)

What the fuck are you talking about, eh?

Prove to me that US interference will produce less Terrorists...Bush speaks tough...he hasn't delivered and it seems to be the other way around. Every time Bush makes a move, someone somewhere gets bombed. (Can't say that Congress actually helps matters)

It takes fucking time, what, do you think the problem's going to get solved overnight? Yeah, we've been in there four years but that's not really a long time at all, it's going to take a few more years. As Iraq stabilises, there will be fewer terrorists- also, it will win more support for the new Iraqi administration (and maybe for the Americans). But give it time.

If we let them kill each other...there will be no terrorists to come out of Iraq. Because they'll all be dead.

They're already fighting each other, you fuckwit.

Heck...I wish the American's weren't so hypocritical.

Shame on Americans being humans!

They put Sadam in charge of Iraq (more or less) and then had him executed for taking control (more or less).

WHAT!? An alliance shifted 3 decades later!? :O

[Roph]

How old are you, gonorrhoea?

[Holkeye]

I'm going to say 15 or 16. He's still in the "use fuck every other word" phase, and probably thinks it makes him dangerous. It really just makes him condescending.

[biohazard]

I'm going to say 15 or 16. He's still in the "use fuck every other word" phase, and probably thinks it makes him dangerous. It really just makes him condescending.

Hey, I'm 14 and I got over that phase about 3 years ago.

[Ruhani777]

i find it kind of funny how catman is trying retaliate just because they cant flame anymore in my "america" topic, oh and by the way, i also find it funny, how catman can flame, and others cannot. Besides, it was U.S. fault for leaving Saddam in charge, even after the gulf war. U.S. interference is whats generating terrorists. We have like 200k something insurgeants in iraq, ready to fight, but america has done enough. Turn iraq into a democracy, well done, only act i found benefitful out of everything, Assign a prime minister, uber cool, put more soldiers into iraq, yeah you lost some rep there, kill 20 iraqi civilians in an attempt to retaliate because insurgeants killed a marine in a roadside bomb, then attempt to cover it up, yeah you just lost my support there, damn marines.

Isreal....

Can either leave or go, it doesnt matter, but then again im finding wats the point of fighting over land, when the land wont be achieved or anything to be true.

But palestinians should regain control of isreal (This name bothers me)

[gonorrhea]

I'm going to say 15 or 16. He's still in the "use fuck every other word" phase, and probably thinks it makes him dangerous. It really just makes him condescending.

I am neither age. Also, I don't think it makes me dangerous, I'm not so stupid. And the point is generally to be condescending, you win a cookie for figuring that out

[Ravenshade]

Friendly fire unavoidable...true...getting killed more by the allies than the enemies....O.o...something wrong. Us British have had more soldiers killed by US troops, than the Iraqi insurgents (or so it seems) and according to the news they even went and killed a journalist...(on purpose...or I may have got the job title mixed up, but I know it's something along those lines)

What the fuck are you talking about, eh?

Prove to me that US interference will produce less Terrorists...Bush speaks tough...he hasn't delivered and it seems to be the other way around. Every time Bush makes a move, someone somewhere gets bombed. (Can't say that Congress actually helps matters)

It takes fucking time, what, do you think the problem's going to get solved overnight? Yeah, we've been in there four years but that's not really a long time at all, it's going to take a few more years. As Iraq stabilises, there will be fewer terrorists- also, it will win more support for the new Iraqi administration (and maybe for the Americans). But give it time.

If we let them kill each other...there will be no terrorists to come out of Iraq. Because they'll all be dead.

They're already fighting each other, you fuckwit.

Heck...I wish the American's weren't so hypocritical.

Shame on Americans being humans!

They put Sadam in charge of Iraq (more or less) and then had him executed for taking control (more or less).

WHAT!? An alliance shifted 3 decades later!? :O

I guess you don't hear the stuff that we hear on Sky news in Britain, but one of your soldiers is going to get prosecuted for shooting down our men for apparently no reason (and I think that man was a journalist)...propaganda, poor poor bush, still fighting the cold war it seems.

The fact is, the Americans just want the country for themselves. Iraq is basically American land now. There's just no formal paper saying it. If everyone pulled out, sure there'd be a lot of blood and guts...the only way to stop the fighting between the two sides, is by erecting a huge wall between two sides. (The Iraqi admin will basically be American...which is why the current Iraqi insurgents are still fighting...at least, that's my thoughts)

They aren't already fighting each other, they're fighting the americans. The Iraqi people don't believe they are in civil war, and it certainly doesn't seem like it from watching Sky news.

If the American's acted a little more sensibly (not the people but the administration) then neither side would be losing so many men. Like the American's knew Saddamn would be a dictator, so why put him in charge? Their fault and they're still making a mess of things.

However, let me agree with Ruhani777 he's saying more or less what I am.

[gonorrhea]

I guess you don't hear the stuff that we hear on Sky news in Britain, but one of your soldiers is going to get prosecuted for shooting down our men for apparently no reason (and I think that man was a journalist)...propaganda, poor poor bush, still fighting the cold war it seems.

Oh wow we should pull out a soldier killed an innocent journalist and it looks fishy. Maybe we should b& war because like when that stuff happens it's bad and when everyone in the country doesn't know about something it's obviously propaganda!

The fact is, the Americans just want the country for themselves. Iraq is basically American land now. There's just no formal paper saying it. If everyone pulled out, sure there'd be a lot of blood and guts...the only way to stop the fighting between the two sides, is by erecting a huge wall between two sides. (The Iraqi admin will basically be American...which is why the current Iraqi insurgents are still fighting...at least, that's my thoughts)

The reasons the Iraqis are fighting are varied and complex, and yes tehy are fighting each other- various Iraqi groups hate each other as much as the Americans.

They aren't already fighting each other, they're fighting the americans. The Iraqi people don't believe they are in civil war, and it certainly doesn't seem like it from watching Sky news.

I think you need to get your information on the Iraq war from somewhere else.

If the American's acted a little more sensibly (not the people but the administration) then neither side would be losing so many men. Like the American's knew Saddamn would be a dictator, so why put him in charge? Their fault and they're still making a mess of things.

They're not losing that many men, although I will admit there are some problems with the army in Iraq (and no, pointing out isolated incidents of soldiers killing innocents or making kiddies run for water bottles doesn't count). Also, my point still stands- AN ALLIANCE SHIFTED THREE DECADES LATER OH MY GOD! It's like when LoS insists time and time again that America is stupid for fighting al-Qaeda because it was originally allied with America in its fight against the Soviet forces.