EnderAndrew

If it was undeniable, then people in this thread wouldn't defend it, but they do. What was the quote that was thrown out earlier, "truth in combat lies with the first victim." In 99% of the wars of the world, people are allowed to keep what they gain in war. Israel was the defender who was attacked. The attacker lost land in the conflict, and yet you say Israel UNDENIABLY stole the land. I say your opinion on this matter is UNDENIABLY close-minded. I have suggested that perhaps the formation of Israel wasn't the best move. I've suggested the conflict is ugly, and that Israel isn't perfect. Yet you've been extremely close-minded in this entire thread, saying that Israelis are the real terrorists simply for being there. I can not mask that your comments consistently come across as anti-semitic. I haven't seen you once be logical or objective on this matter. Your anti-Israeli stance is so absolute, I can't see where it would come from other than discimination or hatred.

I love GMail. I have all of my Diplomacy emails tagged, and I can pull of them up. They are sorted by game, and I can easily look when the last turn was. I also have a rule of trying to submit moves as soon as the turn starts, even if they are tenative. As I said in the other thread, Game 1 is nearing an end, so that will help.

Truly fanatical and willfully ignorant people won't change their courses of action. The best you can hope for I believe is education and tolerance. This conflict will never truly go away, but perhaps the scope of it will change.

Why do people stick to flawed analogies that have been demonstrated as flawed? ISRAEL DIDN"T STEAL THE GAZA STRIP FROM PALESTINE! Israel is not returning the Gaza Strip to Egypt. These are two wrongs and this really has nothing to do with how Israel got the Gaza Strip. That's flat out a bull-**** excuse and unrelated. I suppose England should get to reclaim the Empire they lost after WWII. In fact, I saw we completly revert to historical borders, except instead or reverting to actual historical borders, we randomly reassign land to third parties.

How is this a step forward? Does anyone really believe this will bolster peace?

Apples, meet oranges. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? Both stood up for what they believed in via non-violent protest to what they believed was racial discrimination. I love how people who defend Palestine's terrorist ways say, "they have a right because people were ripped out of their homes 50 years ago" and then turn around and say there is nothing wrong with ripping Jews out of their homes. 2 wrongs != right

I imagine the reality has nothing to do with actually using nukes, or we would have seen them in Afghanistan. We need to spend money for the purpose of spending money sometimes, and fat government contracts are exactly that. Furthermore, developing such weapons means we get them before anyone else, and they can still be used as a threat. Still, I'd prefer that we disarm.

Rosa Parks also refused to leave her seat.

If people were allowed to stay, they wouldn't been forcibly torn out of their homes. Jews are no longer permitted to live in the Gaza Strip, period. And this is supposedly a step towards peace? It is a step towards segregation. Either segregate or don't. Either you think you can live together in peace, or you can't. These half-hearted moves don't solve the problem, but create victims in the mean time.

Even though I seemingly profited from you not submitting moves, I'd rather be stymied then feel the cheap victory of gaining through another's inactivity. I guess that is why I pushed for a reset in the very beginning. I find little joy in a game that is being half-played.

I don't see Game 1 lasting much longer, and Game 2 is quite inactive. So I think the workload of keeping up on 3 games will decrease here pretty soon.

Except now individuals can't live in the Gaza Strip.

I don't know. It could be. I'm sure we've developed new tactical nukes. I don't assume for a second we're perfect.

We operate on silly premises that individuals must have rights even in the face of a larger need of society. That is why we aren't a pure capitalism for instance. Saying that individuals should get the shaft simply to serve a greater good doesn't work as a blanket policy. Otherwise you'd be hard pressed to argue with the logic of articles like A Modest Proposal.

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do. Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns. Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today? I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones.

2 years ago, I recall Bush was pushing a bill to lower the cost of medications for senior citizens. With an election coming up, Democrats were fighting the thing to keep Bush from having an apparent victory. Finally Ted Kennedy spoke up and said the whole thing was stupid, because all the bill did was help people. He called for people to stop fighting for one day and try to pass legislation that did some good in the world. I wonder why we can't see more of that.

Sounds like A Modest Proposal to me. Click and see why that logic is sound, but doesn't fly in society.

There are options besides carpetbombing? And are you asking as a general rule, or in this situation? All parties, including outside parties seem to think seperate states are needed. Frankly, if we're going to relocate people, I think we should build a wall, establish a border and two completely seperate states. Israel can't scream anymore about terrorism and security, because they would have the option to be hermetically sealed.

I couldn't agree more. I think partisan politics is destroying this country. No one cares about admitting mistakes, or doing what is right. Everything is about supporting your party line no matter what, and spinning things to make the other party look bad. If the other party is going to pass legislation that will help this country, you better ruin it before they get a political victory!

I couldn't agree more. And I bet you money this does absolutely nothing to bolster peace. We're treating a gun shot wound with a band-aid, in the wrong location to boot.

Still, the only countries who vocally opposed the war were in Saddam's pocket. 30 counties offered support. France, Germany and Russia opposed it. And yet when Bush was reelected, the leaders of France, Germany and Russia all made statements about how happy they were to see Bush in power, and how they wanted to maintain strong ties (we like US dollars) with the United States.

Overrated: Bioware Underrated: Kevin Smith movies

Well, 30 counties went into Iraq, and many are still giving their support to this day. Several nations are still vocally supporting Bush and the whole affair like Canada and Australia.

My wife watches the show. Lately she has just been reading up on spoilers rather than watching it. If you pay money you can get 24-hour webcam access to the house, and people who have this webcam access report everything that is going on.

Interesting. May I ask where you got this information, or if you have anything to back it up? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Someone made the claim that it was stock footage, but CNN came right back and swore it wasn't stock footage. Why would there be stock footage from 10 years ago where Palestinians are celebrating Americans dying pray tell? Watch the Footage