Hamas wins?

MPCRUSHER said:

No one has answered my question as to what the world would have been like if the allies had not gone to war. You threw it back on me to answer. Lets hear your wonderful utopian response.

And no one can answer your question - because all answers would be speculative at best.

stevebaby said:

Driving tanks into another country (which israel did in 1967) is also an act of war.
Incidentally,sinking another country's ships is also generally considered an act of war.So I suppose that when the uss ward sank a japanese submarine an hour before pearl harbour was attacked,they were actually commencing hostilities in the pacific war?
😄

The Israelis also attacked US ships too, specifically the USS Liberty. 🙂

MPCRUSHER said:

Yes and the reason I havent had to experience war is because of my forefathers sacrifices.

The US and UK have been engaged continually for the last 100 years. There is always war, if you want it you can join up and fight.

MPCRUSHER said:

The second world war was a direct result of what happens when too much time is wasted with diplomacy.

In other words everything but war is a waste of time. So why don't you stop wasting your time here and go fight seeing as you are so keen for other people to do it for you.

MPCRUSHER said:

First of all if my forefathers had never gone to war, then the Japanese would most likely have taken Australia.

What they would have done with the place is anyones guess. Would they have become an industrial giant without the help of American industrialists guiding them? Probably not. However Im sure they would have become much more significant than they are today military speaking.

The US probably would have become involved in an arms struggle with Germany similar to what happened in the cold war with the USSR. England would have been spared I believe and most of the countries in Europe would have been controlled at the end of a gun from Berlin. France who knows, probably would have continued their underground struggle of resistance for many years(at least the Tour de France would have continued in some form) in collaboration with other occupied countries. The amount of resistance however would be dependent on the type of control the Germans could impose. Maybe the Germans would have protracted their land grabs to extend into southern Europe and further.

Who knows what would have happened. What I do know is that life in my country would not have been the same. My Country would have been completely anialiated by the Japanese. We took a stand, made the ultimate sacrifice and have enjoyed relative peace ever since (and I emphasise the term relative)

No one has answered my question as to what the world would have been like if the allies had not gone to war. You threw it back on me to answer. Lets hear your wonderful utopian response.

Simple answer. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

FredC said:

Simple answer. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I thought the very same thing, when I read that diatribe.

You know that there are people who hold great store in that alternative history, [censored]?

we could all be TDF champions using alternative history - except Carerra, he'd still be getting punctured!

This highlights a particular gripe of mine. You provide no evidence or links to back up some of these statements and other folks have picked you up on this before.
Please supply us with a text or newspaper article that reports Israelis firing on U.S. troops with intent as this is news to me.

darkboong said:

The Israelis also attacked US ships too, specifically the USS Liberty. 🙂

Carrera said:

This highlights a particular gripe of mine. You provide no evidence or links to back up some of these statements and other folks have picked you up on this before.
Please supply us with a text or newspaper article that reports Israelis firing on U.S. troops with intent as this is news to me.

I believe the incident occurred in the 1960's. Maybe the 70's.
Of course the Israelis claimed it was all a mistake.

I'm not an alternative historian and I remain a member of an ancient history forum - a very good forum at that.
To put you folks in the picture, I opened a thread about Aramaic on the history site just to see what others had to say.
As I recall, Fred and yourself claimed I was incorrect to state that Aramaic was spoken in Israel later on (I claimed Aramaic wasn't spoken by Jews around 1000 B.C. at the time of the Monarchy). I claimed it was liturgical Hebrew that was used.
On the forum we have teachers, uni lecturers, archeologists and students, of course so there are folks on line who know quite a lot about this subject. Evidence taken from carbon dating, excavations, literary sources and records indicates Aramaic arrived later on in Israel.
If you and Fred have an alternative theory, I'll be happy to post it on the forum and we'll take things from there.
But this is off-topic so I won't raise it again here.
At any rate, here is what one female member posted in reply:
"Aramaic flourished from about 700 BC to 700 AD and was spoken first in Arama which is now Syria and gradually replaced Phoenician and Hebrew in the Middle East but slowly petered out itself to Arabic. Aramaic can still be heard today in a small Syrian settlement of about a thousand Christians living in the hills outside Damascus, Syria. You are right about its biblical importance since the Old Testament books of Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Esther, Tobias,and Judith were originally written in Aramaic as was the New Testament Gospel of St Matthew - this Gospel was written to prosyletize the Jews of Palestine."

limerickman said:

I thought the very same thing, when I read that diatribe.

You know that there are people who hold great store in that alternative history, [censored]?

we could all be TDF champions using alternative history - except Carerra, he'd still be getting punctured!

The point is he was making statements but fowarding no evidence to back it up.

Colorado Ryder said:

I believe the incident occurred in the 1960's. Maybe the 70's.
Of course the Israelis claimed it was all a mistake.

Carrera said:

I'm not an alternative historian and I remain a member of an ancient history forum - a very good forum at that.
To put you folks in the picture, I opened a thread about Aramaic on the history site just to see what others had to say.
As I recall, Fred and yourself claimed I was incorrect to state that Aramaic was spoken in Israel later on (I claimed Aramaic wasn't spoken by Jews around 1000 B.C. at the time of the Monarchy). I claimed it was liturgical Hebrew that was used.
On the forum we have teachers, uni lecturers, archeologists and students, of course so there are folks on line who know quite a lot about this subject. Evidence taken from carbon dating, excavations, literary sources and records indicates Aramaic arrived later on in Israel.
If you and Fred have an alternative theory, I'll be happy to post it on the forum and we'll take things from there.
But this is off-topic so I won't raise it again here.
At any rate, here is what one female member posted in reply:
"Aramaic flourished from about 700 BC to 700 AD and was spoken first in Arama which is now Syria and gradually replaced Phoenician and Hebrew in the Middle East but slowly petered out itself to Arabic. Aramaic can still be heard today in a small Syrian settlement of about a thousand Christians living in the hills outside Damascus, Syria. You are right about its biblical importance since the Old Testament books of Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Esther, Tobias,and Judith were originally written in Aramaic as was the New Testament Gospel of St Matthew - this Gospel was written to prosyletize the Jews of Palestine."

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the other poster who was calling for all out war.

How long did it take you type all that?

Carrera said:

This highlights a particular gripe of mine. You provide no evidence or links to back up some of these statements and other folks have picked you up on this before.
Please supply us with a text or newspaper article that reports Israelis firing on U.S. troops with intent as this is news to me.

Firstly I wasn't quoting and I wasn't premising any argument on who said what.
Secondly it's a well known incident of the 1967 war, the fact it took place is not even disputed by Israel.
Thirdly there are "approximately" 1,700,000 hits for it in Google, first of which is :
http://www.ussliberty.org/

As for determining intent, I never claimed they *intended* to do that, but plenty of *qualified* folks think there was intent, including the US State Department.

There is plenty of material, go look.

Hmmm, I was thinking about those posts. This may take some heat off me as this guy makes me and David Mc seem more moderate. 🙂

limerickman said:

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the other poster who was calling for all out war.

How long did it take you type all that?

Carrera said:

Hmmm, I was thinking about those posts. This may take some heat off me as this guy makes me and David Mc seem more moderate. 🙂

david never called for war (having served in Vietnam I am sure he too would tell you that war is never an answer)
As I see it you and the other poster are cheerleaders for war.

And you never answered the question : can you tell me where you experienced first hand killing in a warzone?

There's a similar theory that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Chinese Embassy during the war in Yugoslavia in retaliation fro China having stolen U.S. nuclear dossiers.
I never heard about this incident but then again most of my readings about Israel are mainly limited to ancient history.

darkboong said:

Firstly I wasn't quoting and I wasn't premising any argument on who said what.
Secondly it's a well known incident of the 1967 war, the fact it took place is not even disputed by Israel.
Thirdly there are "approximately" 1,700,000 hits for it in Google, first of which is :
http://www.ussliberty.org/

As for determining intent, I never claimed they *intended* to do that, but plenty of *qualified* folks think there was intent, including the US State Department.

There is plenty of material, go look.

I don't favour war unless it's for self-defence which is why I admire the Spartans. Nobody would dare mess with the Spartans but, on the other hand, they didn't interfere in anybody else's affairs and weren't imperialistic.
If you're asking whether I served as a mercenary, the answer is negative. Nevertheless, I have been in some pretty dangerous areas and I've had machine guns pointed in my direction on one or two occasions.
Fortunately I'm still around to tell the tale. 🙁

limerickman said:

david never called for war (having served in Vietnam I am sure he too would tell you that war is never an answer)
As I see it you and the other poster are cheerleaders for war.

And you never answered the question : can you tell me where you experienced first hand killing in a warzone?

Carrera said:

I don't favour war unless it's for self-defence which is why I admire the Spartans. Nobody would dare mess with the Spartans but, on the other hand, they didn't interfere in anybody else's affairs and weren't imperialistic.
If you're asking whether I served as a mercenary, the answer is negative. Nevertheless, I have been in some pretty dangerous areas and I've had machine guns pointed in my direction on one or two occasions.
Fortunately I'm still around to tell the tale. 🙁

therefore you have never seen live action ie people being killed in a war.

I haven't fought in a war as a soldier. However, there is no plan to start a war as such with Iran. The plan will probably be to combine air-strikes with other measures and it's highly unlikely troops will be sent in.
Maybe they will enforce a sea blockade or use some other pressures. I don't think Europe, Russia and the U.S. will allow Iran to go nuclear and will somehow find a way and means to put an end to Iran's nuclear aspirations but I guess it can be done without sending in ground forces.
I guess the way I'd do it would be to use air cover and land troops just in the suspect areas where the nuclear facilities are located. These key areas could possibly be defended by air and teams sent in to dimsmantle the facility. All you need to do is block off the suspect sites, go in and then get out quick. Of course, I'm far from being an expert and am just churning over a few ideas as to how they might do it. That is, if Iran continues to reject the Russian enrichment proposal. Maybe they will just accept the strong alliance of Russia, Europe and the U.S. when all is said and done.

limerickman said:

therefore you have never seen live action ie people being killed in a war.

Carrera said:

I haven't fought in a war as a soldier. However, there is no plan to start a war as such with Iran. The plan will probably be to combine air-strikes with other measures and it's highly unlikely troops will be sent in.

That is war. If your hometown got carpet bombed without a single enemy boot setting foot in Blighty that would still be an act of war. The same applies even if the victims are Iranian.

Carrera said:

That is, if Iran continues to reject the Russian enrichment proposal. Maybe they will just accept the strong alliance of Russia, Europe and the U.S. when all is said and done.

Why should they accept it ? They are entitled to enrich Uranium, they are not entitled to make weapons from it. Sealing the Uranium enrichment sites was actually an *additional* concession that they made in addition to the concessions they made with the NPT.

You appear to take what Iran says seriously, why not have a look at what Israel and the US are saying seriously ? The US and Israel have repeatedly threatened to use Nuclear Weapons and in the case of the US it actually has used them twice already. So in terms of threats and track record the US and Israel are a far greater threat than Iran.

You are planning attacks on Iran, so your bias is clear.

You have often complained that you feel Israel isn't held to the same standard as the rest of the world... I have a proposal, how about we hold Iran to the same standard as Israel ? It would sort out the NPT issues pretty quickly because Israel isn't even signed up to the NPT.

darkboong said:

That is war. If your hometown got carpet bombed without a single enemy boot setting foot in Blighty that would still be an act of war. The same applies even if the victims are Iranian.

Why should they accept it ? They are entitled to enrich Uranium, they are not entitled to make weapons from it. Sealing the Uranium enrichment sites was actually an *additional* concession that they made in addition to the concessions they made with the NPT.

You appear to take what Iran says seriously, why not have a look at what Israel and the US are saying seriously ? The US and Israel have repeatedly threatened to use Nuclear Weapons and in the case of the US it actually has used them twice already. So in terms of threats and track record the US and Israel are a far greater threat than Iran.

You are planning attacks on Iran, so your bias is clear.

You have often complained that you feel Israel isn't held to the same standard as the rest of the world... I have a proposal, how about we hold Iran to the same standard as Israel ? It would sort out the NPT issues pretty quickly because Israel isn't even signed up to the NPT.

Glad you edited your post and caught your error.

Colorado Ryder said:

Glad you edited your post and caught your error.

Which error ? 🙂