My point was that the tensions between Israel and UAE wasn't a big deal in the first place. If Trump gets NK and SK to reconcile, I'll find that nobel for him personally.
Nope. I guess no need for any nobels. If I get Argentina and Sudan to like to each other can I get a nobel prize?
This is a good deal. It takes the wind out of the sails of the 'annexe the West Bank' folks in Israel and continues the Arab world's slow march to a grown up position on Israel. Basing the policies of nations on little more than anti-semitism is always a poor idea. To the extent that the Trump Administration has brokered this deal it deserves congratulations. The UAE isn't a big player, and is more closely and openly allied to the US than any other Arab state, but this is still positive. Israel is no threat to the Arab world provided its borders are safe. Sadly, the failure of generations of Palestinian leaders to cut a peace deal has once again been highlighted. The sooner they make a deal or their own nation the better. Their position just gets weaker by the year.
Obviously, you have not been following the Middle East. Any Middle Eastern country normalizing relations with Israel is a big deal. Prior to this, Israel only had normal relations Egypt and Jordan. Other small countries could follow suit. Such as Bahrain or Qatar. Granted these are small countries, but they could even lead to a Saudi/Israel pact. The battle lines in the Middle East are being redrawn. Some countries will stay supporting Iran, but a lot are turning away. The more isolated that Iran becomes, the better it is for the rest of the Middle East.
There hasn't been actual war in the middle east for decades. The real conflict is with the Palestinians. If Trump got a deal brokered there, then that would be a big deal. I don't think the Palestinians are giving up just because the UAE has better relations with Israel now. Remember when the Nobel Peace Prize actually meant something?
You need to bone up on history!!! Syria has been fighting a civil war since the Obama Administration. Then there is the whole US/Afghanistan War still going on. There is the civil war is Yemen. All of these are currently ongoing in the Middle East. As far as the Palestinians and Israel is concerned, there is not much grounds for peace, but the President is still trying. As far as the Nobel Peace Prize is concerned, it stopped meaning anything the day they gave Obama one for doing nothing.
And nothing you said refutes anything I said. If you refuse to believe its a real deal that's on you. I guess in your opinion, his Noble Peace Prize is fake too. But then again, you know what they say about opinions !!!
[QUOTE="Giftedone, post: 1071964007, member: 50378"]I give up - you tell me what the difference are and we go from there.[/QUOTE] Good call
Good call[/QUOTE] I am sure anyone else that has tried has come to a similar conclusion. Like your first grade teacher when talking to your mother - shaking her head - looking at the ground - saying "I'm sorry Mr's X but _ _ _ )
I am sure anyone else that has tried has come to a similar conclusion. Like your first grade teacher when talking to your mother - shaking her head - looking at the ground - saying "I'm sorry Mr's X but _ _ _ )[/QUOTE] If you want debate then debate. Your previous post ran from debate and I merely pointed that out.
If you want debate then debate. Your previous post ran from debate and I merely pointed that out.[/QUOTE] What debate did I run from ? I was explaining a simple concept to you - but, perhaps my your failings as a student are my failings as a teacher. Had nothing to do with the actual "debate" question. I mean really ... if you go to a debate - and one of debaters does nothing but repeat a circular premise .... say "Abortion" .. stating " A zygote is a human because it is a human" .. .and the Moderator explains the the point of a debate is to defend his claim - but the person does not understand and just keeps repeating claim - over and over ... ... hard to call some other debater who never got chance to speak the loser of such a debate . But - you could say the other debater did not win it either - so in the mind of the rambling idiot in my example - on the basis that the other fellow did not will claim to have won the debate.
What debate did I run from ? I was explaining a simple concept to you - but, perhaps my your failings as a student are my failings as a teacher. Had nothing to do with the actual "debate" question. I mean really ... if you go to a debate - and one of debaters does nothing but repeat a circular premise .... say "Abortion" .. stating " A zygote is a human because it is a human" .. .and the Moderator explains the the point of a debate is to defend his claim - but the person does not understand and just keeps repeating claim - over and over ... ... hard to call some other debater who never got chance to speak the loser of such a debate . But - you could say the other debater did not win it either - so in the mind of the rambling idiot in my example - on the basis that the other fellow did not will claim to have won the debate.[/QUOTE] You ran from my bringing up the Sherman doctrine of all out war and his march through Georgia and how it related to israel destroying terrorist families homes.
If someone bulldozed your house and kicked you to the curb - tough not to hate those who did that to you. Bibi puts much energy into stoking hate - which is kind of worse when you think about it .. that those who hate him for his evil deeds.
Sherman's March might very well have prolonged the war. It certainly made the Peace a very bitter one and there's no good indication anybody surrendered any more quickly. Had Grant arrested and then hanged Lee, as many suggested, the ACW would nearly certainly have had a decades-long guerilla aftermath. Most Germans who lived through it attested that the WWII bombing stiffened their resistance, and the British generally concur with that. You should try to break your enemy's ARMIE'S will to fight, yes, but treating civilians without mercy is generally a bad idea. Do you really think that little girl will bring up any of her children to love Israelis?
Your opinion aside historians are virtually unanimous in concluding Sherman’s march through Georgia broke the spirit of the confederacy and brought a quicker end to the war.
Israel and Palestians are in a war. War is hell. Palestians dont hate israel because they bull doze houses of terrorists. Palestians hate Israel because Israel exists. Until Palestians can deal with Israel existing, war will continue and israel will continue to uphold policies for the benefit of national security and Palestians will continue to try to blow up pizza shops filled with Israeli children, or busses filled with Israeli citizens. It is what it is. At this point people pick sides. I choose Israel. You can choose the death cult Palestinians if that is where your passion lies.
Appreciate the effort - kudo's for that - but I disagree with your premise that when one side does bad things - in a blood feud - it does not inspire hate in the other side. So .. yeah .. good luck defending that premise. Second - you contradict your self Conflict between A and B is a war - and there is no "terrorism" in war .. collatoral damage is the name of the game .. and if you want to have a dick measuring contest between the two sides ... Israel is the far greater killer of innocents - a metric by which any measure of terrorism is defined - if you are going to say there is "terrorism" going on. So if there is no terrorism in war then why are you calling one side terrorists ? - contradicting yourself. And if you claim there is terrorism in war - you have also contradicted yourself by calling one side terrorist and not the other - and good luck coming up with some contorted made up definition of terrorism .. because even that will not work .. believe me .. many have tried ... You will be crushed ... as there is nothing that the Palestinians have done .. that Israel has not done 10 x worse - never mind on an equal basis. Your last statement is correct - in part - what is also correct - in the same way - is that those who got control of Israel after the war have hated the Palestinians at least since then .. but other than stating the obvious - what is your point ... This is a blood feud .. goes way back - got it Palestine has recognized Israel's right to exist - and this is a nonsense argument as Israel has done everything in its power to thwart the 2 state solution. This is not about picking sides. There is no right side in a blood feud .. what you want to do is figure out how to end the feud .. and so long as Israel keeps engaging in terrorism against the Palestinians - war crimes , and crimes against humanity - and numerous other deeds for which Israel has been deemed guilty ... many many many many times over the years ... things are not likely to improve. Picking sides in a blood feud only serves to prolong the blood feud. In this case - "picking sides" involves minimizing the atrocities of one side - to the people that have the power to make a change. .
Overall, a good post. I would have added something about their slow ethnic cleansing, but your post stands quite nicely on it's own. I don't have the patience (I am 69, old and grumpy) to write many as long as that. So yes, I am writing a disagreeable post to say I agree with you.
I'm going to do something that I think will amaze most here and say that I think Trump is actually right in saying this should have his name on it. Fair's fair, the Carter Accords were given Carter's name and this should have Trump's. If he comes back and improves on it after he loses in November what should we call him? A Bronze Eminence?
Yeah, your stinks. Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. He then escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and got us involved in Syria. If it had not been for a GOP led Congress, he would have gotten far more involved in Libya. Hardly the actions worthy of a Peace Prize. Was his prize real? Yes. Was it deserved? Hell, no. BTW, I did not dispute your statement, I merely asked you a clarifying question. Try answering that question.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been handed out for doing nothing plenty of times. Kissinger even got one for selling out a US ally and failing to stop a war. Difference is that just about all of those prizes for doing nothing or utterly failing went to white guys and happened before the year 2000, so conservatives either didn't know care. Obama's prize was not the first stupid one to be awarded, just the first one US conservatives cared about. Says a lot about them, not much about the NPP.
Just in this specific interpretation of history - wrong. There was a dramatic increase in desertions from Lee's army, with many of those who were caught citing news of Sherman's march as the reason they wanted to go home. Sherman's army also destroyed food & war material that would otherwise have supplied Confederate armies. Phil Sheridan's equally destructive campaign in the Shenandoah valley did something very similar. Both sides in the ACW understood the value of destroying not just military forces, but the ability of the enemy to make war. That meant destroying food, factories, valuable commodities and civilian morale. Had the Confederacy mounted a sustained invasion of the North similar things were planned. I'm not speaking to the specifics of the Israeli/Palestinean issue here, but you'll need to change examples. Sherman's strategy worked.
This is one of the FEW things I like that Trump did. why? cause it stopped Israel from stealing half of the West Bank, which is Arab land.
Go back and read the post that I was responding to. The poster asked whether I thought the Nobel Peace Prize given to Obama was real. My response was that it was real, but not deserved. I agree with you on Kissinger peace prize.
