Herman Cain: You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the U.S.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And, the Senate is in play. I think that will suck up a lot of money that would be going to GOP candidates. Ron Paul has a shot, if only by default, with an ability to raise money on his own, and campaign effectively with an in-place grass roots organization. Talk about a boring set of Presidential debates, Paul v. Obama, in the fall of 2012. I am sure none of the networks want to carry that.

I would consider voting for Ron, I wonder what other independents might do.

[scandal 951]

it's a nice map and all, but at the end of the day, who the he11 cares? it's still illegal to acquire territory by military conquest, let alone hang onto it for over 40 years. while i'm sure the us could probably make an emotional plea about how it would be best for their national security if they decided to carve out big chunks of mexico and canada as a buffer zone and plunked a bunch of americans down there in govt subsidized settlements, and blathered on about how it was extremely necessary to maintain that buffer zone, that the rest of the world would believe that was completely absurd. no one would think that was ok, least of all canada or mexico. and it would still be absurd and illegal, no matter how much the us attempted to demonize canada and mexico and impress upon the world how much of a theoretical threat they were. at the end of the day, it still remains stolen property.

In the first place: Who the hell cares? Well, those of us concerned about Israel's legitimate right to sovereignty and self-defense most assuredly do care. So too, I presume, does Simpson who asked a question which I attempted to answer. YOU may not care, but your choice of language in speaking of others speaks volumes about you.

In the second place: You should bone up on some history regarding the military expansionism of 19th century America. What you describe as preposterous (The US claiming chunks of Mexican territory by force of arms and settling it) is the precise, exact history of Alta California. The Mexican-American War 1846-1848 was an aggressive, expansionist war initiated by President James Polk for the express purpose of getting American access to the Pacific. It resulted in the present day states of California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. I'm still waiting for the UN Security Council resolutions calling for the return of these illegally occupied states back to Mexico ...........

For that matter, I'm waiting for the Security Council resolutions calling for the return of Florida to the Seminole Indians, and the return of the rest of the USA to its indigenous populations................. No? Silence? Gee. Strange.

In the third place: the claim that the acquired territory was seized "illegally" is by no means established. Unlike the US and Mexico, which were two sovereign nations with demarcated and recognized borders in 1846, prior to the US illegally overrunning those borders militarily, this was NOT the case in 1967 with Israel. Rather, what existed in 1967 was an Armistice Line, the de-facto line on the map where armies had simply ceased firing in 1949. It was not a recognized or official border of any sort between 1949-1967. Nor was the West Bank a recognized Palestinian (or other) "nation" that was "invaded" in 1967. Israel was provoked by an Act of War -- Nasser had closed off the Straits of Tiran to shipping, and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had all massed troops for the offensive Nasser was promising. Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza (btw, you should ask those Arab protectors of yours where they were for 19 years in failing to establish the State of Palestine on land THEY were occupying). In a recognized act of self defense during wartime, Israel pursued enemies who were live-firing on them from across the Armistice Line. This was in a continued state of war that had existed from 1948-49 onward. The land then occupied was land that had always been integral up till then (and till now) - we still don't have a 2 state solution to be violated, so what violation could have occurred?

In the fourth place: I'm prepared, as are a majority of Israelis, to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians to a nation of their own in contiguous borders. I believe in a solution that involves two states for two peoples, mutual recognition and respect for sovereignty in secure borders for both peoples and both nations. By your choice of wording : "who the hell", "absurd and illegal", etc. I question whether you are a person interested in such good faith negotiations.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And, the Senate is in play. I think that will suck up a lot of money that would be going to GOP candidates. Ron Paul has a shot, if only by default, with an ability to raise money on his own, and campaign effectively with an in-place grass roots organization. Talk about a boring set of Presidential debates, Paul v. Obama, in the fall of 2012. I am sure none of the networks want to carry that.

The House is in play, too. The GOP doesn't have a lock on it. The Ryan budget vote is going to hurt them. And they know it. On the Senate side, Brown is already running away from Ryan. As fast as he can. He's up in 2012 and there's no way he'd make it having voted for ridding the US of Medicare. He may have a hard time making it even if he votes against Ryan's budget plan which he has already made clear he will.

[Vi-Jay 218]

In the first place: Who the hell cares? Well, those of us concerned about Israel's legitimate right to sovereignty and self-defense most assuredly do care. So too, I presume, does Simpson who asked a question which I attempted to answer. YOU may not care, but your choice of language in speaking of others speaks volumes about you.

In the second place: You should bone up on some history regarding the military expansionism of 19th century America. What you describe as preposterous (The US claiming chunks of Mexican territory by force of arms and settling it) is the precise, exact history of Alta California. The Mexican-American War 1846-1848 was an aggressive, expansionist war initiated by President James Polk for the express purpose of getting American access to the Pacific. It resulted in the present day states of California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. I'm still waiting for the UN Security Council resolutions calling for the return of these illegally occupied states back to Mexico ...........

For that matter, I'm waiting for the Security Council resolutions calling for the return of Florida to the Seminole Indians, and the return of the rest of the USA to its indigenous populations................. No? Silence? Gee. Strange.

In the third place: the claim that the acquired territory was seized "illegally" is by no means established. Unlike the US and Mexico, which were two sovereign nations with demarcated and recognized borders in 1846, prior to the US illegally overrunning those borders militarily, this was NOT the case in 1967 with Israel. Rather, what existed in 1967 was an Armistice Line, the de-facto line on the map where armies had simply ceased firing in 1949. It was not a recognized or official border of any sort between 1949-1967. Nor was the West Bank a recognized Palestinian (or other) "nation" that was "invaded" in 1967. Israel was provoked by an Act of War -- Nasser had closed off the Straits of Tiran to shipping, and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had all massed troops for the offensive Nasser was promising. Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza (btw, you should ask those Arab protectors of yours where they were for 19 years in failing to establish the State of Palestine on land THEY were occupying). In a recognized act of self defense during wartime, Israel pursued enemies who were live-firing on them from across the Armistice Line. This was in a continued state of war that had existed from 1948-49 onward. The land then occupied was land that had always been integral up till then (and till now) - we still don't have a 2 state solution to be violated, so what violation could have occurred?

In the fourth place: I'm prepared, as are a majority of Israelis, to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians to a nation of their own in contiguous borders. I believe in a solution that involves two states for two peoples, mutual recognition and respect for sovereignty in secure borders for both peoples and both nations. By your choice of wording : "who the hell", "absurd and illegal", etc. I question whether you are a person interested in such good faith negotiations.

That was very well stated and I enjoyed reading it.

I am curious. .hmmmmm. .are you of Jewish heritage?

Edited May 24, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[^_^ 5,021]

By your choice of wording : "who the hell", "absurd and illegal", etc. I question whether you are a person interested in such good faith negotiations.

Roll back to 67 and people like her will be saying "who the hell cares?" if Israel even exists.

[^_^ 5,021]

are you of Jewish heritage?

That is a strange choice of emoticon to associate with that question. Do Jews bother you?

[scandal 951]

That was very well stated and I enjoyed reading it.

I am curious. .hmmmmm. .are you of Jewish heritage?

- Thank you , glad you enjoyed it.

- Yes I am Jewish.

That is a strange choice of emoticon to associate with that question. Do Jews bother you?

I don't think Vijay meant anything by it AJ. I certainly don't take it that way.

Roll back to 67 and people like her will be saying "who the hell cares?" if Israel even exists.

They say the same today.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If Israel does stupidly agree to go back to pre 67 then will the U.S. guarantee Israels right to exist? Would they insist that no military at all will be occupying the acquired land? Will Hamas agree to any of this as this is most important since Palestinians insist they are their spokesman and voted them in office? Once the closest neighbors agree to all this (If they do) then does Iran have to agree to make this all work?

Or is it all about there being an Israel at all in the region?

[Vi-Jay 218]

That is a strange choice of emoticon to associate with that question. Do Jews bother you?

Paranoid much?

Maybe a few prunes might loosen that butt clinch you're dealing with.

Oh wait, I got it!

You were rushing to Scandals defense!!

Awwww, that's really sweet!

You do have a man crush on Scandal.

[Vi-Jay 218]

- Thank you , glad you enjoyed it.

- Yes I am Jewish.

I don't think Vijay meant anything by it AJ. I certainly don't take it that way.

No offense meant.

I sensed passion in your phrasing and wanted to identify your motivation.

I will be more careful when choosing an emoticon next time so not to accidentally offend.

[scandal 951]

Paranoid much?

Maybe a few prunes might loosen that butt clinch you're dealing with.

Oh wait, I got it!

You were rushing to Scandals defense!!

Awwww, that's really sweet!

You do have a man crush on Scandal.

:rofl:

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think this map does a pretty good job of illustrating the answer to this question.

70% of Israel's population lies in the "Mishor HaHof" region encompassing Tel Aviv and its suburbs (shaded on the map).

At it's narrowest, the width of pre-1967 Israel between the Med. Sea and the "Green Line" is about 9 miles, from Tulkarem to Netanya. That's the point Bibi made on Friday at the White House. One can easily see that there is very little strategic depth in such a narrow zone.

Consequently the various Israeli proposals for a land-for-peace swap have called for one or more of:

(1) a buffer zone within the Green Line to widen this narrow belt

(2) a disarmed West Bank, with no standing army or armor

(3) a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan Valley and at other strategic locations, typically hilltops

(4) strategic Israeli settlements within the West Bank

There has been vigorous discussion of this question within Israel, of course. Well respected military and political figures come down on both sides of whether the borderline is really a vital strategic interest. You have those who believe that 1967 lines are mass national suicide. And you have those who believe that the real strategic threat comes from Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Arab world. 10 or 20 or even 50Km of "strategic Depth" between Netanya and the Jordan River would mean nothing in an Iranian nuclear missile launch, or if Syrian armor came down over the Golan as they did in 1973.

I personally lean towards the left in these discussions, but I'm not a military tactician of any sort. I do have a commonsense notion that massing hostile armored divisions along the Tulkarem/Kalkilya line on the map above would be something that keeps the military high command in Israel to lose a lot of sleep.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Knowing that Syria or any middle eastern country would be pulverized if they attempted any sort of attack on Israel, that alone would act as a deterrent. With that said Israel would do some serious destruction in the process too.For those reasons I think Israel would be OK.

Roll back to 67 and people like her will be saying "who the hell cares?" if Israel even exists.

"her" I had no idea.

What am I to take from this video? That these Palestinians are throwing rocks in the wrong direction? Garbage cans make horrible shields? I roll my eyes when I see videos like this because it gives you very little insight to what going on over there but kids will take videos like this and run with it.

Edited May 24, 2011 by _Simpson_

[^_^ 5,021]

"her" I had no idea.

Does it really matter?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Does it really matter?

Yes because I see woman as inferior and refuse to debate with them.