Well he did parachute into Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands just like Chuck Norris would have done.

HockeyDad wrote:

HEY FUZZNJ>>>>>>

Notice I took Obama's side??

....and you call me a right wing hack.

HockeyDad wrote:

I believe Israel now owns the land in dispute. The Palestinians attempted to invade and destroy Israel. Israel held off the attack and took the spoils of war. It's been their land since 1967. Too frickin' bad......if you don't want to lose land, don't attack your neighbor....

chiefburg wrote:

Umm...no. That's the story that has been told for the last 40 years, but no. Israel struck first, claiming they were in imminent danger of an attack from Egypt, which even our own intelligence said wouldn't likely happen and would have been futile on Egypt's part anyway.

borndead1 wrote:

no need for revisionistas. The story is still widely accepted because of its accuracy, sorry to say. Egypt amassed huge amounts of military on the border as others surrounding Israel began synchronized maneuvering...Syrian tanks on another front etc. This was not going to be a picnic, whaddya think??!! The reason intelligence later proclaimed the futility of Egypt's moves was because of what ensued! Predictability of Israel kicking their asses may have proven Egypt's plan stupid, but they absolutely planned to join in with their brethren in an attempt to eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. Bad plan, goodbye land. Absolutely the way it happened.

It is also widely accepted that a threatened country striking first is considered a pre-emptive strike. Had they not, you wouldn't have Israel to kick around anymore.

frankj1 wrote:

The 1967 borders is not a new US position. The Bush administration also proposed the same thing. The 'outrage' from the right is strange considering that fact, but predictable.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I hate to pull a Fuzz, but do some research...just because something is repeated thousands of times for decades doesn't make it true. I don't feel like digging around much for this stuff, but here is 1 link.

borndead1 wrote:

Bush 5-26-05

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

he imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the road map. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life.

1-10-08

There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides…While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

FuzzNJ wrote:

There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.



That pretty much covers it.

HockeyDad wrote: