Meanwhile in Palestine

[Gorth]

And Volo, Japan never conquered China, not even close.

They conquered Manchuria though. It was the Soviets that kicked them out of Manchuria again in the second largest military operation in WWII (only Barbarossa was larger in scope and resources).

[HoonDing]

Japan would've even invaded Mongolia and Siberia if Zhukov hadn't given them a thorough whipping before WWII started in earnest.

[Agelastos]

And, Germany didn't lose to justv Europe. They lost because non European countries like the US and Canada also pitched in. Nice try, though. Bottom line is one country was able to take on a whole continent.

 

*sigh* The war had already turned when the US got involved. Russia did a lot more to defeat the nazis than the US did.

With that said, if they hadn't pitched in we would have had a lot more Soviet satellite states in Europe during the Cold War, so I guess we should be thankful for that.,

[Bos_hybrid]

Winning a war and holding land long term is two different things.

 

Actually they aren't, essentially the allies have won the battle of Afghanistan, but not the war. If the moment the allies leave Afghanistan, the Taliban gets back in power(which all things point to), then the West has lost. All those casualties, all that money and it was for nothing.

 

Iraq is no less stable than it used to be - unless your idea of 'stable' is having all the power in the hands of one man and his cronies.

 

The sad fact of it all, is that it actually is. Far more people are dying in tribal and religious disputes now then when Saddam was in power. Much of Iraq already limited infrastructure was destroyed in the war, power shortages, crime, poverty all greater now then before.

 

Might it be better for it in the future? Perhaps or perhaps another dictator will take Saddam's place, or extremist group similar to the Taliban will gain power. Or perhaps it will become a thriving democracy. As it stands nothing is certain.

 

 

That's ebcause Japan didn't have the man power to hold a vast coutnry like China. That doesn't change the fact they defated the much bigger China in a war. And, Germany didn't lose to justv Europe. They lost because non European countries like the US and Canada also pitched in. Nice try, though. Bottom line is one country was able to take on a whole continent.

 

And despite superior weaponry, tanks and tactics the Germans still lost. Not because of any American ingenuity, England's stead fast refusal to lay down, or Russia's winter, but the sheer numbers of the Allied forces. The amount of Russians killed in the German offensive was staggering, and yet despite that, the Russians sent more souls into the meat grinder.

 

However judging from your post, you tend to think America won the war, rather than acknowledge that is was an Allied effort.

 

And, orewinde provided more evidence that your population argument is just silly.

 

He posted numbers on a 6 day war which was a surprise attack, that involved 240,000 arab troops rather than immense number the middle east could call on today . It has absolutely no bearing on the state of play today.

 

Just ask the NA natives about that as well. Their numbers surely didn't help them fighting guntoting invaders.

 

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

 

And that had it not the European settlers would of found a thriving 20-100 million strong Native American civilization, instead of what was essentially the broken survivors of a decimated civilization.

 

Sorry. You lose.

 

Roofles!

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[pmp10]

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

Could you provide a source for that estimate?

90% dead seem a bit much even for genocidal conquest.

[Hurlshort]

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

Could you provide a source for that estimate?

90% dead seem a bit much even for genocidal conquest.

 

The estimates are in that range.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

[Gfted1]

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

Could you provide a source for that estimate?

90% dead seem a bit much even for genocidal conquest.

 

The estimates are in that range.

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Americas

 

As the link states, 20-100 million were for the entirety of the Americas. North America had a much lower population:

 

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus' date='[sup'][5][/sup] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).

[pmp10]

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

Could you provide a source for that estimate?

90% dead seem a bit much even for genocidal conquest.

 

The estimates are in that range.

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Americas

That's top of that range for the local tribes.

Average would amount to around 60% which is still devastating but not outright extinction.

[HoonDing]

Cortez conquered an Empire of 10+ million Aztecs and he landed with 500 men.

 

Apart from technological gap (even bigger in the 1700-1800s than in the 1500s), French/English used the same 'divide and conquer' tactics of Cortez. Aztecs had an Empire consisting of many tribes that could be used against each other, NA native Americans were similarly divided and henceforth certain tribes allied with colonials to wipe out their rivals.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Drudanae

[JFSOCC]

You do realize that two years before the Europeans had landed, the plague had swept through North America killing an estimated 90% of the Native American population?

Could you provide a source for that estimate?

90% dead seem a bit much even for genocidal conquest.

Native Americans had no immunities against diseases that developed in europe, Europeans did because they evolved alongside those diseases.

[Meshugger]

It's good to know that the focus of the thread is how to start and win a war against Israel. Peace? pheh!

[Volourn]

"not great, as that was a surprise attack by Israel."

 

That just proves the point that is being made. Winning a war is about more than mere numbers. It's about various things tied together that leads to avrious outcomecomes. Surprise, quality of equipment, numbers, strategy, and even luck at time all contribute to results. Thank you for proving my point.

[Zoraptor]

And Volo, Japan never conquered China, not even close.

They conquered Manchuria though. It was the Soviets that kicked them out of Manchuria again in the second largest military operation in WWII (only Barbarossa was larger in scope and resources).

Yep, though Manchuria was and still is the least populated area of eastern China they also held a lot of the coastline as well, but they never came close to holding everything- maybe a quarter, roughly. In any case Japan/ China isn't a good model for anything modern as neither army was 'modern' in the sense that Germany was at the start or the main allies were at the end of WW2.

[Oerwinde]

"not great, as that was a surprise attack by Israel."

 

That just proves the point that is being made. Winning a war is about more than mere numbers. It's about various things tied together that leads to avrious outcomecomes. Surprise, quality of equipment, numbers, strategy, and even luck at time all contribute to results. Thank you for proving my point.

 

Also, it was a surprise attack in the sense that a Jack in the Box is a surprise. Everyone knew it was coming, everyone was prepared for it, the Israelis just didn't go "Ok, its coming now" The Egyptians had massed their forces in anticipation of the war, the Iraqis had moved troops into Jordan, etc. But like a Jack in the Box, no matter how prepared you are for it to pop, when it does you still jump. The Israelis knew where to attack, and when, and how hard, and guaranteed with satellite surveilance and such now, they'd be even better at it.

[alanschu]

And, Germany didn't lose to justv Europe. They lost because non European countries like the US and Canada also pitched in. Nice try, though. Bottom line is one country was able to take on a whole continent.

 

*sigh* The war had already turned when the US got involved. Russia did a lot more to defeat the nazis than the US did.

With that said, if they hadn't pitched in we would have had a lot more Soviet satellite states in Europe during the Cold War, so I guess we should be thankful for that.,

 

I'm sure the Soviets didn't mind eating the US food and stuff like that though. Or flying British aircraft, or being trained by British pilots, or driving British tanks, or wearing British boots.

 

I know Stalin was a shrewd diplomat, but I don't think he was completely blowing smoke up America's butt when he acknowledged that their contributions had been very important at the 1943 Tehran Conference.

[Agelastos]

And, Germany didn't lose to justv Europe. They lost because non European countries like the US and Canada also pitched in. Nice try, though. Bottom line is one country was able to take on a whole continent.

 

*sigh* The war had already turned when the US got involved. Russia did a lot more to defeat the nazis than the US did.

With that said, if they hadn't pitched in we would have had a lot more Soviet satellite states in Europe during the Cold War, so I guess we should be thankful for that.,

 

I'm sure the Soviets didn't mind eating the US food and stuff like that though. Or flying British aircraft, or being trained by British pilots, or driving British tanks, or wearing British boots.

 

I know Stalin was a shrewd diplomat, but I don't think he was completely blowing smoke up America's butt when he acknowledged that their contributions had been very important at the 1943 Tehran Conference.

 

Of course they helped a lot, but the Allies would have won anyway. It might have taken another year to win, taken longer to rebuild Europe, and probably have made the Cold War worse than it already was, but the Allies would have won.

And I don't know what the UK has to do with what I said. I was merely saying that "No, we would not be speaking German now if it wasn't for the North Americans".

[Calax]

So Palestine is now recognized by the UN as it's own nation, independent of Israel

[alanschu]

And I don't know what the UK has to do with what I said. I was merely saying that "No, we would not be speaking German now if it wasn't for the North Americans".

 

Because the UK was a recipient of Lend-Lease as well, and as a result was able to contribute additional aid to the Soviet Union as well. They aren't sending pilots and hurricanes over to Murmansk days after Barbarossa starts without the assistance the US had been giving them.

 

 

You're understating the US's contributions to the Allied war effort. I don't agree that one country took on a whole continent, but stating that the Russians [sic] had already turned the tide of the war by the time the US got involved would pretty much mean that the Soviets had turned the tide a few months after June 22 (when the first direct aid shipments from the US arrived in the Soviet Union). The Soviet Union only does as much as they did to defeat the Nazi's because of foreign aid. Without it, their contributions couldn't possibly be as high. The Soviet Union received over 1/3 of the support that the UK received over the duration of the conflict, to the tune of $11 billion dollars at the time. This isn't a trivial contribution.

[Oerwinde]

So Palestine is now recognized by the UN as it's own nation, independent of Israel

 

And Canada's resident Minister of Buffoonery John Baird vowed there would be consequences, because how dare the UN abandon the method of achieving peace in the middle east that they have been employing for the last 65 years?

 

Maybe because its not working?

 

*sigh*

[alanschu]

I actually contacted my MP asking what was up. I find that position confusing as well.

[Malcador]

Don't see what's confusing about it, Tories have been all-in for Israel for some time now, I guess it's partly ideology and partly that they're in someone's pocket, heh. One thing though, don't think I'd dislike any MP more than Baird just by looking at him.

[Calax]

From what I read in headlines, the American government is similar.

[Farbautisonn]

So Palestine is now recognized by the UN as it's own nation, independent of Israel

 

And Canada's resident Minister of Buffoonery John Baird vowed there would be consequences, because how dare the UN abandon the method of achieving peace in the middle east that they have been employing for the last 65 years?

 

Maybe because its not working?

 

*sigh*

 

Maybe those 3.000 new homes for Haredi on the West Bank (just for starters) is what people who were opposed to this was referring to. Israel has to react to this unilateral move. Bibi has to look strong, especially after he caved in on a cease fire where most of the Israelis wanted a new Cast Lead and got nothing but crap in return for doing so.

 

So. New settlements, and other "measures" that will ensure more rockets from Hamas, Fatah trying to apply pressure unilaterally, a palestinian population that is increasingly hawkish, an Israeli population that is ditto, and nobody who has power to do **** all except escalate the situation.

 

Grats. More strife in the mideast for the chance of rubbing your nipples with morals and ethics that noone in the mid east respects anyway. .

[Farbautisonn]

Anecdotal evidence is evidence of "instances" it in itself is not enough. For instance you mentioned that Gaza has a 5 star hotel. From this we're supposed to infer that everything is fine and dandy in that country.

Dont think I ever stated that or even implied that. Gaza has a five star hotel. Hotels generally run because there are clients for them. They arent charities, and I doubt the average gazean can afford a five star hotel. What the implication is to me is that whilst its not "fine and dandy", its not a concentration camp, a batustan or an apartheid akin to what was prevalent stateside 70 years ago or in SA 50 years ago.

 

When in fact, the fact that it is just the one, and nothing is said about it's success (other than that it wasn't open yet). That hotel is going to fail, obviously. so it fails as evidence.

And yet it still exists, and "obviously" doesnt make for very good evidence in the empirical sense just because you say so.

 

I did present you with evidence refuting the claim that there is enough food in Gaza, and I did it with stronger evidence than the obesity study that you presented.

There is enough food to get obese. There is enough food to ensure that there are no KZ camp images. There are hundreds of thousands that are treated in israeli hospitals, plus a plethora of other empirical instances that refute your claims. Gaza is the number one recipient of UN support funds per capita in the world. Israel donates funds, collects taxes (and gives these to the PA) and takes care of alot of the PAs apparent inability to police their own, govern themselves, build infrastructure and maintain it, etc. And all it gets in return, is "No peace till you leave" / Right of return for us, but no jews inside our borders / you are nazis running a concentration camp / etc ad nauseam.

 

Israel is there, its not going away, and the sooner the palestinians learn to accept that fact, and accept the fact that if they wont give an israeli state security, it will take it at any cost, the better.

[JFSOCC]

We'll start with this: http://www.independe...re-2333286.html

So a crazy rich man built a 5 star Hotel, one that sits mostly empty.

 

I also thought these reviews were pretty interesting:

http://www.tripadvis...html#UR75699650

-

There is enough food to ensure that there are no KZ camp images.

Maybe if there were people would actually start doing something about it. Yet the food situation in Palestine is far from ideal

http://972mag.com/fi...ser-look/52392/

 

Also, the reason I dismiss your hotel example as unscientific (because it's incidental) is because this prestige project thing is a common tactic to fool others. it's something to point at and say "see things are not so bad, focus your camera on this" when right next door awful things are going on.

Edited November 30, 2012 by JFSOCC