But at least you finally gave credence to my initial argument months ago that Israel really is surrounded by those dedicated to their demise, I first called it a siege, you strongly poo pooed the notion. I feel vindicated.

frankj1 wrote:

But remember to thank the ancient hatred for creating such opportunity. Guess we disagree on the whole chicken egg thing.

frankj1 wrote:

The neat thing about ancient hatred is it gets hard to figure out who started it after awhile.

I can't blame the Israelites for holding grudges after the whole slavery in Egypt deal and building the pyramids, conquering by the Assyrians, conquering by the Babylonians, conquering by the Persians, conquering by the Greeks, conquering by the Romans, getting renamed as Syria Palaestina and getting hauled off to Rome to build the Colosseum, and then becoming dhimmi under Muslim and Ottoman rule for a millennium.

If I went through all that, I would probably want to nuke someone too!

HockeyDad wrote:

The term "surrounded" was and is still a load of crap! Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel and those are the two largest borders. The only way to make the "surrounded" claim was to declare all arabs to be enemies of Israel. (Actually that might be how Netanyahoo got elected or something close to it!. It definitely got 110% of the settler vote!)

HockeyDad wrote:

You know, you just slay me evey time you talk about those treaties.

The "treaty" with Egypt isn't worth the parchment it was written on, now more than ever (if they finally succeed in completing their attempted revolution) and that goes back to well before the current military regime as much of the citizenry never wanted to honor it. Egypt will only honor it until the day they think they might actually be able to beat Israel. It has always been so. Israel's military is what enforced it. Muslim Brotherhood is just another restricted membership country club. Very tough sand traps, wouldn't want to belong.

Jordan, they probably would like to stay out of it. They wanted no part years ago and created the West Bank, leading to men without a country. But there is the West Bank in the circle that surrounds and somehow weapons manage to get through Jordan. Those Syrians are crafty.

I think we have both sufficiently established our positions and no change will come from more exchanges. I'd consider negotiating a Tampa/Boston peace treaty but not with preconditions. Or at least a cease fire for the Super Bowl. Can't afford to get carpal in my beer stein wrist.

frankj1 wrote:

When you discard the treaties and all the work that went into them by great men, you leave Israel with pretty much no option but endless war and preferably a 500 mile ring around Israel where every living thing is killed. Now Israel would be safe. You would get a fair amount of support from this from the right wing in Israel, especially if the USA actually was the one who cleared the ring!

HockeyDad wrote:

What was the final body count of US soldiers in all those Arab Israeli wars?

frankj1 wrote:

A notable exception to Israel taking "orders" was when they did honor Bush's request to stay stay out of it when Saddam fired missiles into Israeli neighborhoods. Musta been really hard for a nation so desirous of endless war.

frankj1 wrote:

Anyhoo, since I do not want Worcester either, let's set it free, strip them of their citizenship, ask New Jersey to annex, and ultimately recreate what Jordan hath wrought. We'll call it "New Palestine", but the residents will probably refuse any rational offers of statehood forever.

Heading out now. A great evening is about to unfold. GO PATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

frankj1 wrote:

37 dead and 170 wounded in direct combat action.

so ends the nonesense of us doing their fighting.



You gotta admit their end of the bargain was pretty sweet.....No more Saddam, no more WMD, and no more Iraq and done and paid for all by the US of A! Nobody ever said those Jews don't know how to negotiate....

but we didn't do it for them. We did it to get the Osama bin Saddam guy, remember. The guy who took the twin towers and whose oil was gonna pay for the whole shmear. It had nothing to do with Israel.




Nobody ever wants Worcester! Have fun tonight!

Poor Worcester

GO GIANTS!

(You would have expected nothing less from me.)

HockeyDad wrote:

This thread has, once again, degenerated and become pathetic...

rfenst wrote:

This thread has, once again, degenerated and become pathetic. No responsible country would stand still while its most determined and apparently soon to be capable enemy nation appears to be technologically moving close to its undeniable stated goal of annihilation of that country. Whether the U.S gets dragged in or chooses to participate is on the U.S., not the pro-Israel or the Jewish lobbies. Even though I am a Jew. Even though I believe that Israel should exist. Even though I believe in most of the concepts of Zionism, I do NOT want there to be a war, let alone one where the U.S. gets involved.

rfenst wrote:

Oh there's a clear picture painted alright, but it's by Iran's leaders, and if you can't see it then check out the lyrics they have supplied in unambiguous terms:

Israel must be removed from the face of the Earth.

Crystal clear. They do not want to be misinterpreted. Old words that never stopped from them, and others. They are proud of it, they are not hiding in shameful shadows. This is no whisper campaign. The difference today is they have finally decided to make their dream come true. Such is the unavoidable destiny of modern holocaust denyers like their Maynard G. Krebs look-alike leader. The citizens of Iran, not so sure they totally buy into it but they are oppressed by their gov't. Never read about that from you.

But it's an ancient hatred for them, they are not neo-nazis. Might have even inspired Hitler's nutty little Aryan master race blueprint, I dunno, but this is not a new idea for them or other radical Muslims.

You have issues with Israel and Israeli policy. Fine. Many agree with you. But don't you see that what Iran et al really despise is Judaism? And Israel sticks in their craw. You absolutely never address that underlying FACT other than citing some new negative that Israel has done to cause it now. But they have hated forever. They will continue to hate. It isn't because of settlements. This is not an Arab/Israeli skirmish. There is simply zero desire for a life in peace side by side in their dream.

Their not-so clandestine military policies, along with those kooks from Syria, have been to dispassionately lead Palestinians to slaughter in an effort to destabilize Israel, take her down, corrupt the world's view of her. But it just ain't working and Syria as they know it, may be disappearing. What to do if you are Iran?

You are correct in one sense, Iran does not want war either, they want a laydown.

Has Israel ever said they plan to erase another nation from the map? The truth, as you know it too, is nope.

They won't allow anyone to erase them. You call that provocative agitation. Unfathomable.

If you don't want to send aid (money/arms) to Israel or any country. Fine. Believe in that, it's an arguable political position with merit. I can understand that position/vision/philosophy.

I'll never convince you, not really my goal. Just want to make sure the truth stays alive here and anywhere there are deniers and people gullible enough to believe the neuveau slick marketing of Israel's enemies spinning the softening of their destroy-Israel policies.

Don't bother speaking for me...I pray there will not be a war with Iran. You guessed wrong.

frankj1 wrote:

I fully support Israel attacking Iran and I still can't make people happy!

HockeyDad wrote:

I disagree, rfenst. Don't be so dramatic, my friend. They are passionate. That's all.
Despite agreeing/disagreeing (and ignoring- lol) with bits and pieces, I've also learned from both.

bloody spaniard wrote:

poor bas tard can't win for losing😞

bloody spaniard wrote:

If you're going to buy into all the Iranian rhetoric over the years and going with "No responsible country would stand still while its most determined and apparently soon to be capable enemy nation appears to be technologically moving close to its undeniable stated goal of annihilation of that country", you can't go all soft at the same time and say you don't want there to be a war. You can't have it both ways.

HockeyDad wrote: