Here is a good site for the war: http://www.sixdaywar.org/precursors.asp http://www.sixdaywar.org/war.asp
The Falklands contain people who consider themselves entirely British when asked and it's been that way for the past 150+ years. You may as well ask when all the yanks are going to move out of America and give it back to the native Americans although even that doesn't work because the other people who claim the Falklands weren't native to the land anyway, they were mostly other Europeans, mainly Italian and Spanish. As to your, (equally fatuous), point about land won 'in defensive wars', (whatever the feck THAT means ), that's a very good point. Or, at least, it WOULD be if this was the 17th century.... but it's not. Most of us live in the 20th, (now the 21st), century so attitudes common several hundred years are considered ludicrous and hateful now.
BTW, are you linking to that Israeli six day war site as a form of avant-garde performance art? http://www.sixdaywar.org/myths-and-facts.asp Myth: Israel's occupation of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the Gaza Strip during the Six-Day War caused Palestinian terrorism. Fact: Arab terrorism not only pre-dates Israeli control of the disputed territories, but also the creation of Israel itself. The car and truck bombs of Islamic extremists in today's Middle East and beyond are nothing new; a triple-truck bombing at Jerusalem's Zion Square on Feb. 22, 1948 murdered 54 Jews and wounded many others. Hmm... I wonder where they got the idea from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on 22 July 1946 by the militant terrorist right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[1][2][3] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[4] Yeah, that could be it....
You do realize that WWI, WWII were both fought in the 20th century right? Both involved land grabs and huge amounts of land were traded at the end of each war right? The point is you start a war, and you lose, you will pay for that war either by payments or lost resources and land.
Yes I am certain that is the first ever terror attack to ever have occured in that region. Or anywhere right?
Of course there is also Desert Storm, attempted land grab by saddam. The iran-iraq war, how many wars in Africa involve taking land? India v Pakistan wars?
Oh, so our aim is to be the same as Saddam Hussein now? Anyone else we should be aiming to emulate? Hitler possibly? Pol Pot? Maybe we can really push the boat out and try and achieve Genghis Khan status
Don't tell me mate... tell the dipshits that write that website you keep linking to that tried to imply that terrorism was an Arab invention when even the most poorly educated person knows that's not the case.
Really? Well, that's great That means I can go build my dream house in, say, Stuttgart or maybe somewhere in the Black Forest. I hear the skiing is wonderful there and HEY!... When you get thrown out by the native Americans you can come visit me Something to look forward to, eh!
Ho-hum getting a bit boring, or is this more of that dry wit I always hear about from you Brits? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sO1IpSkD9.../EJtFI946qCw/s1600/Europe-before_afterWWI.gif I will have to post maps of Europe before and after WWII later.
No. Just Roman Abramovich status. Mr. Conspriacy qualified it with payments. For example, since Nazi Germany lost WWII, they paid reparations (and I don't know if they are still paying?) even though Frankfurt is not an American city. But I would like to know if Mr. Conspiracy considers the war in Afghanistan a defensive war (I think most would) and yet Kabul is not an American city nor did the Taliban pay reparations. But that war isn't over yet (and probably never will mate). As far as the bloodshed in Syria, I think the moment of truth will eventually come where the West will be forced to intervene and disarm the Syrian army. If it doesn't, the civil war will continue. Neither side (the rebels or the Assad regime) is going to back down. And the fact that the IRI has been essentially silent about the deaths here but throws a huge hissy fit when Israel killed 1000 Palestinians a couple of years back has made Iran look very hypocritical (not that the West/Israel has also not been hypocritical) but Iran's key trait that attracted it by the "Arab street" was its vision of Muslim justice. Now it's seen as just another Israel or US... a country that supports killing when it's in its interests to do so. Estimates show that Assad has killed over 25000 Syrians. So that makes the IDF seem like Gandhi compared to the Syrian army.
Am I to assume you're unaware that many changes after WWI and WWII reflected changes that simply reversed previous land-grabs from wars and suchlike? For example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania In the aftermath of World War I, Lithuania's Act of Independence was signed on 16 February 1918, declaring the re-establishment of a sovereign state. Actually, looking at that map, many of the changes can be traced back to the fall of the Habsburg Empire and it's related fall of the of the so-called 'Holy Roman Empire' which, as Gibbon observed, was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Of course, all this should give you some idea of the time-scale we're talking about as opposed to something, (the six day war), that's occurred during MY lifetime Still, presumably that implies the Israelis will be giving the land, (well, MORE of it, to be fair), they've nicked back again at some point so, again... good news
I think you mean WWI don't you. They received aid under the Marshall plan after WWII precisely because of the disastrous attempt to bleed them dry with reparations after WWI. You'd have thought there'd be a lesson there, wouldn't you but, maybe not Actually it was Britain that was still paying money back to the Americans after WWII under the lend-lease arrangements, ending in 2006 IIRC. Granted it was to help us fight Nazism and we lost 60,000 in the blitz alone but, y'know... business is business, eh!
Not that I know of. Menachem Begun ordered the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel and later became prime minister of Israel. The Irgun was based on the ideas of Jabotinsky who fought first for the British in WWI but was later aided by Mussolini's Italy. Interesting, (and extremely complex), character that guy. TBH The whole history of Israel is fraught with moral and ethical issues and nobody, (particularly us), come out of it with much credit. I haven't got a problem saying that. What annoys me is when people turn up and try and present the matter as if it's a case of the good guys, (the fellas with the white hats), drawing the wagons in a circle. Let's put it this way.... as I understand it, if my grandfather adopted the Jewish faith, (not that they proselytise but that's another matter), I would have a 'right to return' to Israel, even though nobody in my family, (and I can trace my lot back about 400 years), have ever been near or by the place. Yet some Palestinians, some of whom still have their front door key from when they left their houses, CAN'T return. With the best will in the world, THAT is fecked up! Of course, most of the problems can be traced back to the ludicrous decision of the Americans to force through a UN vote supporting the Israelis declaration of an independent state. As you probably know, we actually abstained from the vote but, like I say.... we owed them money. Not a good idea to fall out with your landlord, is it.
Perhaps they should exchange those keys, for the ones possessed by Israelis who used to live in the Arab countries, but can't return ... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Balfour_portrait_and_declaration.JPG
But the situation wasn't created by large numbers of arabs moving into what had been an area with a different demographic mix, was it. Looks like you've grabbed firmly hold of the wrong end of the stick, (not for the first time it has to be said). Agreed! That was when we went around sticking our big noses, (npi), into things that didn't concern us... a long and (in)glorious tradition you fellas have now continued it seems
Only if you believe that the Jewish population in these Arab countries was not concentrated in certain districts or neighborhoods. Excuse me for noting the demographics during the British rule over the region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#British_control_1918.E2.80.931948 "In 1920, ... there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine ... Four-fifths ... are Moslems. ... 77,000 of the population are Christians ... The Jewish element ... numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were ... only a handful of Jews. ... By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews" "According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, as of May 2006, of Israel's 7 million people, 77% were Jews, 18.5% Arabs, and 4.3% "others"." There are more Arabs in Israel now, than there were in all of Palestine in 1920. As usual, blame the British for drawing bad lines in the sand (as well as the dirt & on the rocks!).
The Six Day War is so full of myths that talking about it seriously is difficult. In hindsight, it is clear that the Arabs were not about to attack and incapable of attacking. The best Egyptian troops were in Yemen and had not been recalled, the Syrian military was corrupt while the Jordanians had a extremely competant and professional military, but a small one with an air force too small for major operations. But it did not extirely look that way at the time. The real lesson of the Six Day War -- if you are not capable of destroying your neighbor and have not madepreparation of destorying your neighbor, do not talk and act as though you are about to. With respect to the Falkands, the British claim is weak and previous governments (even Thtcher at one point) was looking to find some solution (such as recognising Argentine soveriegnty, but agreeing to some sort of UK administration). That all ended with the invasion. The whole thing is silly over an island with more sheep and penguins that people.
Whether they weren't or whether they weren't, they didn't flood into the area in large numbers and thus largely create the situation in the first place, did they. I mean, I know WHY it happened but it wasn't the Arabs fault, was it. So your argument in favour of Israeli overreaction, (and apparent sense of entitlement), in the past 60 years is to point out how they've flooded in over the past several decades, there having been almost NONE of them before. Yeah, good thinking Still, I suppose coming from a person from a country that stole the entire country from it's indigenous population, (the native Americans), the attitude seems quite familiar. As opposed to the lovely squiggly ones you fellas draw y'mean. Hey, at least ours were straight.
Nobody's claim is good to the Falklands. The difference is the people there want to be part of us and not Argentina. Like the Scots, if they didn't, they can leave.