If it was 50 miles of land rather than 50 miles of water separating China from Taiwan, could you be so assured about remaining free of hostile takeover? There are some significant differences between the two situations in a tactical sense. In regards to the destruction part, I always thought that China wanted Taiwan back with minimal damage to the infrastructure. The physical destruction concept is new to me. If you meant the destruction of the governmental system and the residents becoming subordinate to Peking (with minimal damage to the infrastructure), then what does 300 missiles have to do with it? It would take the ability to land significant force and resupply that force to physically occupy Taiwan and change/oust the current governmental system and force it to be subordinate to Peking. Currently, China lacks the ability to land significant force and oust/change the current government of Taiwan. There are still several groups that wish to see Israel <i>removed</i> from the Middle East. If you have a good link that has China wishing to have Taiwan <i>removed</i> in the same manner that some wish for Israel to be <i>removed</i>, please present it.
Does the UN form a world opinion on something that it doesn't recognize as a <i>state</i>? Doesn't China block UN recognition of Taiwan as a state and consider matters concerning Taiwan as part of China's internal relations, thus <i>offlimits</i> for UN review & vote?
is it that what everyone thinks over the States? come on, that's laughable. if a war breaks out across the taiwan gulf, China can destroy tainwan in a month just like the US is doing to Iraq right now. of course, it's assumed that the US won't intervene. I agree that taiwan issue is a completely different situation than the Israel one. comparing the two is ridiculous. China doesn't pose a threat to Taiwan at all as long as Taiwan doesn't seek independence.
Actually, by your definition, neither does the UN recognise Palestine as a state. And hence the Palestinean issue is off limits to UN discussion as well? Same with Kosovo and Chechnya? The fact is that much of the discussions at the U.N. revolve around so-called "internal relations". The fact of the matter is that Taiwan could easily provoke a number of international and domestic incidents (invading and occupying territoy, assassinating enemy leaders, kidnapping enemy citizens, etc. etc. like Israel) if it chooses to, which would place the U.S. in an embarassing situation at the U.N. Yet, to the contrary, she has always respected U.S. sensitivities. That's all I'm trying to say: Allies, especially those America goes to great expense to help, should behave in a way helpful, or at least not detrimental, to American interests. This Israel has clearly failed to do. Basically the same backstabbing that our erstwhile allies France and Germany did to us this time on the issue of Iraq, well Israel has done for the past 20 years, and for far less moral causes... While everyone may have their reasons, it still doesn't detract from the fact that Americans have a right to get angry.
Lovely how a bash-Israel thread can develop out of thin air like this. All the Israelis said was that if the US plan compromises their security, then they would reject it. Big surprise. What, I guess you guys want them to say "We will accept any peace plan proposed, no matter how much it compromises our security. We accept the existence of Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, etc, as well as their legitemate claims to the soil we are standing on. If they want to kill us with the blessings of the American administration, then we will abide by the US President's wishes, since we are, after all, one and the same zionist entity..." Is that what you're waiting to hear? Don't hold your breath. Few nations are really into national suicide. The Prez's plan does call for a beginning of rolling back the settlements. If the Israelis refuse it on those grounds, then you may have something to b**** about. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke...
It is nice that Israel has an opninion but ... Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We're on top, we make the rules now, so f* em... You are either with us or against us ...
the problem with "security" is that for Israel this means: 1) continuous military incursions into Palestinean territory 2) bulldozing houses in refugee camps 3) arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture 4) assasinations 5) illegal occupation of foreign territory ------------ and this "security" was necessary to deal with the consequences an improper cause to begin with: aggressive zionism (expansion through war, displacement of native populace, and settlements). ------------ the arab world has already signaled its readiness to stop supporting terrorism and accept an israeli state, if she in turn abides by the rules and lives in peace alongside the future palestinean state. so even the pretext for this "security" is gone. ------------- abstracting all those violations of international law and human rights into a nice-sounding term "security", doesn't detract from the fact that everything about it is wrong. ------------- yes it is that simple. and as Treeman says, we haven't even gotten STARTED on the settlements issue yet...
hey i agree with you. except that... while the U.S. may be on top of the rest of the world... i think ISRAEL is on top of the U.S., and they make the rules for us. so in this case, "Who cares what the U.S. thinks. Israel's on top, they make the rules now, so f* America... " --------------------------------------------- According to the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that¡KI want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
No worries, it is sad to see that you have become an anti-Semite. It appears that you are completely biased against Jews and I suspect that you are pro-terrorist (pro-Palestinian)because: You have not started a thread recently: 1) to criticize suicide bombers, 2) to detail how the Palestinians always use any peace discussions to be terrorists 3) how the Palestinians not only want to drive all Jews into the sea, but that they are an imminent threat to do so. 4) You offer no proof that the PLO has not had contacts with Al Qaeda and is therefore responsible for 9/11 5) you have failed to mention that Israel is a democracy for at least most of its people 6) you have not mentioned that Israel just wants to stop the violence or 7) that the Palestinians have rejected the last "best offer" of a homeland composed of strips of land honeycombed with settlments that just happen to be above all the ground water. Dakota, you, too, appear to be an anti-Semite or anti-Sharon, which is the same thing.. You fail to state that Israel is a democracy and fail to acknowlege how Israel was the only other country in which a majority of the people were always for the invasion of Iraq. You falsely state that Israel needs us and not vice versa. You fail to give credit for the valuable counter-terorism training and urban warfare training that Israel has given to our troops, without which we would be helpless against Iraqi terrorism. No acknowlege that Israel makes lots of its own weapons and is therefore not dependent on our arms for all of their military. Dakota, it doesn't appear that you are one of those typical leftwing anti-Semites, but it makes one wonder if you are a follower of Pat Buchanan or perhaps David Duke. Both of you fail to understand that God has required, as proven by the Bible, that the West Bank and Gaza (Judaea and Samaria) be returned to Israel before the Second Coming. You seem like otherwise nice guys, but I guess we can name two people who will not be among the 144, 000 Just who will be raptured when this all comes to pass
Funny you shoul mention the Dukester ... David Duke showing Israel his luv, Pravda style. (The above link is a warning to all. Never trust google blindly and chase all the links it gives you.) Never knew the Dukestaer was a Ruskie sympathizing pinko Commie. What has this world become!
Glynch, your post is so ridiculous is mind-boggling. I will say this, you're so much in a hurry to defend Israel and talk about what they can and can't do. If they're so self sufficient they wouldn't have needed 6 billion dollars from the U.S. As for Israel, the U.S. gives these countries money, supplies, supports, etc., and the first they do is stab us in the back. I say completely cut off Israel, no questions asked. Personally I would cut off support for the majority of the countries. If they hate the U.S. so much don't take hand outs from us. Then we'll see where they stand. But for someone like glynch to compare DaDa to a follower of a racist and crap like: <i>Dakota, you, too, appear to be an anti-Semite or anti-Sharon, which is the same thing.. </i> <i>Dakota, it doesn't appear that you are one of those typical leftwing anti-Semites, but it makes one wonder if you are a follower of Pat Buchanan or perhaps David Duke. </i> Tells me you have NO credibility whatsoever. <i>You seem like otherwise nice guys, but I guess we can name two people who will not be among the 144, 000 Just who will be raptured when this all comes to pass </i> Yeah glynch, because your beliefs are the only beliefs in the world. I mean this is so idiotic it is beyond belief. I'm guessing god only believes what you believe right?
You mean the 6 billion that No Worries inflated at the beginning of the thread that his links show to be 1 billion, the rest being credit for future loans? They stab us in the back? We're on a mission right now fighting global terrorism, and Israel issues a statement that if their security against terrorism is compromised in any plan, they won't support it, they're all of a sudden stabbing us in the back and against us? Let's make this a little basketball analogy: let's go back a year or two when the Lakers are the most dominant team in the league by far, and are poised for an NBA championship. This is like Bill Walton issuing a statement that if Shaq and Kobe are injured, the Lakers won't be able to win the title, and someone going around and proclaiming that the Lakers are no longer the favorites to win the title. I'm right with treeman here. This has degenerated into spewings of anti-Israel propaganda and rant.
The UN has some past history in the Partition of Palestine and the overall disposition of the the former Ottoman Empire. So there is a precedent for UN interest on that issue. UN Resolution 181 in 1947 provided for the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab state. You cite other areas of the world (Kosovo and Chechnya) as examples of UN discussion over internal matters. As far as I know, China takes great offense if anything concerning Taiwan is even broached at the UN. Other countries seem to be aware of that and refrain from offending China. You call it my defintion, but I was using what appears to be the Chinese definiton and few nations seem to challenge China over it. The point that I was attempting to make, is that the US doesn't have to veto anything for Taiwan because the subject rarely appears on the UN agenda.
At some point both sides have to make concessions. The problem is that Israel isn't willing. It's just hate feeding on hate over there right now. They bulldoze houses because of suicide bombers, which causes more terrorist reprisals, which causes more Israeli reprisals, etc. A funny story from when i was in M.I. school at Ft. Huachuca Arizona. The instructors told us to watch out for the Israelis at the local bars. They're always trying to buy classified U.S. technology and they get away with it because when they do get caught they get deported to Israel and don't have to spend time in American prisons for espionage like everyone else's spies do.
