Astor Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 But that is what it is. Israel is responding in force. They have been trying diplomatic solutions for the last year or so. Now they're pulling the plug and taking out all-stops. Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region. I cannot think of any other motive that they would attack Gaza, it surely cannot be just for pure greed, that's not an Israeli thing to do. They are handling the problem in their way. Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else. And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region.QFT. Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else.Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War. Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value. And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'.Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War. Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value. I agree, but I like to think that if everyone had gone along with it in the first place the past 60 years in the region might have been a little quieter (ok, so not that much, but it might have been better). Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world. I know, it's a mystery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world. Yeah, I agree that our continued support of Israel has proven to be more trouble than it's worth. They've shown themselves to be no better than Hamas. We should have pulled our support before 9/11, though. To do so now would seem like we're giving in to terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world. It'd be kind of nice if we didn't send guns to either of them (and if other countries wouldn't send guns, either), and only gave humanitarian aid as needed. However, handing guns to both sides is like handing arsenals to the Crips and Bloods and letting all hell break loose on the streets when they decided to shoot the snot out of each other. Come to think of it, it rather is like one huge gang war, except it's over more land and with much bigger guns and assorted other 'toys'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I am not as well versed in the history of Palestine and Israel as anyone else but I have come to learn something about international and war crimes, etc. As far as I am concerned, Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine which I believe is less than the original agreement in the Oslo accords. I may be wrong so don't bang the hammer on my head. Anyway, the way I see it, since Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine, Israel has no right to set up their settlements within those areas. Though they call it a different name it is clearly settlement colonialism. Wouldn't that tick Palestinians off? Or better yet when Israelis bouldoze tenement houses belonging to Palestinians to build these settlements. Wouldn't that tick them off too? Oh and what about the fact that the Israeli gives Palestinians hell when they try to cross the checkpoints into Jerusalem, etc? Oh and what about them denying a woman with cerebal palsy to get a tampon from her purse as she was waiting to board her flight home? I would think that would tick people off. I've seen it before. They grow tired and they become angry and they think that the best way is to lash out with violence since clearly international law isn't going to help them. Of course the US turns a blind eye since we pretty much have a vested interest in Israel and for pete's sake we train their military. This sudden disapproval of Israel bombing UN buildings is met with a skeptic eye to me. After all we clearly didn't have any regard for the UN regarding the invasion of Iraq and heck we were bound to obey all articles of the UN charter since Article 6 of our Constitution clearly states that any treaties we sign becomes part of the supreme law of the land. Of course I am still collecting more information but I very little sympathy for Israel when they complain about the militants bombing them. Hmm, perhaps their leaders should think about what they are doing eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 ^^^^ Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Article - Bin Laden tape urges war on Israel, taunts Bush Remember when I said there are no white flags in this war? Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel and condemned Arab governments as allies of the Jewish state in a new message aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive. Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers. The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Cites world economic problems The al-Qaida leader also said the world economic crisis was a sign that the United States' power was falling apart, boasting that "the Islamic nation's jihad is one of the main causes of these destructive results for our enemies." Pointing to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden said al-Qaida was prepared to fight "for seven more years, and seven more after that, then seven more." "We are on the way to opening new fronts," he said, urging Muslims to "join hands with the mujahedeen to continue the jihad against the enemy, to continue bleeding them on these two fronts and on the others that are open to you." "The question is, can America continue the war against us for several more decades? The reports and signs show us otherwise," he said. He said Bush had left his successor "with a heavy inheritance," forcing Obama to choose between withdrawing from the wars or continuing. "If he withdraws from the war, it is a military defeat. If he continues, he drowns in economic crisis," bin Laden said. It was the first time bin Laden have spoken of Obama, though he did not mention him by name. Bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri has previously spoken against Obama, warning Muslims he will not bring major change in U.S. policies. Was Bush and Israel right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Thanks Achilles. As to Yar-el's post regarding Osama, I believe he is correct in stating that we are placed in a catch-22 situation. If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples. Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power. As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Thanks Achilles.You're welcome. If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat If you make a decision, and then later realize that it was a bad one, is it admitting defeat? When we entered Iraq, we did so under the pretenses of toppling a dictator who had WMDs poised to use against the U.S. We invaded the country. We toppled the dictator. We discovered no WMDs. Why is it "defeat" if we leave? I'm not trying to be snide. I genuinely don't understand the argument. but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples.Agreed. Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power.And that's just two in the Middle East that spring to mind. If we meandered over to Africa or South America, we'd find lots more. As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq.Kudos for the "Presidents from Texas" tie-in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat I too am confused by this statement. A good reason why the world has a distaste for us is that we are terrible at admitting defeat, or admitting we could have been wrong on something. We must be right no matter what, regardless of the many consequences that can follow. That is fine if you don't care what the other 6.5 billion people on the planet think of you, but not so great when you are trying to look good in the World. And don't give me semantics. Bush himself at his latest press conferences has admitted that the search for WMD's was a disappointment, or just a downright failure of the administration. The only weapons we found were weapons we personally gave to them in the Cold War, and weapons the Russan's had handed out. This entire conflict was a making of our own. Why not admit that we royally screwed up? Humility and self-reflection is something we Americans really need to learn before we lose the world standing to a humanitarian disaster like China. Not directed at you, just trying to fill all my bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat With all due respect, I really don't think that this is an important factor any more. It wouldn't be the first time that thousands of our servicemen have been sacrificed on the altar of executive and legislative stupidity. The fact that there is not and never was a clearly-defined military objective in Iraq set us up for defeat from the outset. One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not. Of course, given that we have accomplished next to nothing, the best course of action would have been to not invade in the first place, or to go in, topple Saddam and then leave. We couldn't extract anything resembling a victory from Iraq if we stayed there for the next 20 years. All that remaining there is going to accomplish is more deaths; both theirs and ours. It's pointless to continue and it's long since time to pull out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not.I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one. Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one. Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own? Or am I misunderstanding you here? Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to. You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own?If one were sufficiently intelligent, yes. The fact that the decision makers didn't take heed (per your earlier post) would indicate to some that said decision makers were not sufficiently intelligent. That's my take on it anyway. My comment was the long way 'round of accusing Bush and his cronies of being a bunch of chickenhawks. You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you?None of the decision makers behind the invasion of Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz) served in Vietnam. Bush was in the Air National Guard, Cheney had 5 or 6 draft deferments, and Rumsfeld was a flight instructor for the Navy for a few years way back in the 1950's. On the other hand, Colin Powell served two tours in Vietnam and is widely believed to have been pushed out of Bush's Cabinet due to his dissent re: the Iraq plan (take that for what you will). So the one guy that actually had some chance of knowing what he was talking about was the one guy that they didn't listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid. Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid.My pleasure. Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all.Powell wasn't part of the club Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Israel shells UN Headquarters What the hell do they expect to come of such an action? For once, I find myself agreeing with Gordon Brown - it's Indefensible. If they keep acting like that, I can see someone else is going to get involved - either for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'm surprised nothing has been done already by the 'more powerful' nations, aside from the bleating from the politicians. It seems like countries are so scared of making a wrong step that they don't make any steps at all. Dealing with it by... not dealing with it. Kind of exposes the lack of power the more developed nations have really, similarly to Russia's provocations during the conflicts in Georgia. Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still. Who said anything about taking sides? Both of them need to be slapped down, hard, by a few of the G8 nations, and told to stop fighting needlessly over a stupid city. Supporting either side is utter nonsense: the truth is, support from every other nation, especially the US, needs to be withdrawn, tactical military measures to stop the fighting at both sources needs to take place, and this needs to return to a diplomatic solution, preferably with both Israel and Hamas getting a proverbial slap upside the head for behaving like toddlers with guns, and killing random civilians to achieve miltary goals. No side is justified in this, and no side deserves biased support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stmBoy, the IDF sure sounds splendid, eh? Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment? Right now, I can see why Ahmadinejad is so pissy towards Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Israel Declares Ceasefire. Something tells me it ain't gonna last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Israel Declares Ceasefire. Something tells me it ain't gonna last. I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO. No way it lasts even that long. Hamas will fire more rockets next week or so and then Israel will retaliate. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.