BF2S Forums Israelis don't want peace

And then the sanctions against Iraq kinda pushed him over the edge, yeah.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Not really.  A lot of the reasoning behind Al Quida began with us having troops in Saudi Arabia.  Bin Laden really didn't care about Israel.

Turquoise wrote:

That being said, I would prefer we cut our ties to Israel... and Saudi Arabia for that matter

Well...  here's the issue...

We no longer have troops in Saudi Arabia.  Al Quida has clearly changed its agenda now to one that is more all-encompassing.

We've managed to stabilize Iraq somewhat, but even after our troops levels fall to minimal amounts there, we've still got a ton of shit to deal with in Afghanistan.  We're probably not drawing down troops there anytime soon.

While the Taliban is clearly the greater threat in Afghanistan, I'm sure Al Quida isn't opposed to taking advantage of the turmoil in Pakistan resulting from our presence next door.

I guess what I'm getting at is...   I'm definitely in favor of getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq while cutting ties to Saudi Arabia and Israel, but....

I would never assume that terrorism would end after all that.  It might fall significantly, but there are some extremists who will strive to attack us regardless of what choices we make.

In the end, it's just a matter of trying to piss off the fewest people while still trying to make alliances.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US has tropps in Iraq, Afghanistan and is regularly attacking Pakistan, I guess thats whats keeping AQ rolling.

I'm sure that the mess that Afghanistan has become and the pain in the ass that rural Pakistan is becoming certainly helps in recruiting extremists.

Unfortunately, we may end up going to war with Pakistan.  They're basically a ticking time bomb.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Using " illegal force " is a War crime. So is regime change.

didn't we change the Iraqi regime?

talk to Dilbert about it not me !

why? it's you i quoted, and Dilberts stance on all things American is well known. . .

In the expert opinion of many people the Iraq invasion was a war of aggression and therefore a war crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
Bush and Blair have both said that even without evidence of WMDs they would have gone in to remove Saddam, which by itself is a war crime.

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

What the Israelis are continuing to do, throwing the Palestinians off their land through violence, is also a crime.

Cybargs wrote:

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

regime change isnt a war crime wtf are you on about.

I can't remember where (Geneva Protocol IV?) but I do specifically recall reading that a war fought with the express purpose of regime change is technically illegal.

Iraq was about WMDs lulz.

can't find anything in the GC regarding illegal regime changes. Russia did that shit all over the place and no one stepped up. least iraq had democratically elected officials.

protocol - not convention. i do recall that it's somewhere in international law but i can't for the life of me remember where.

burnzz wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

talk to Dilbert about it not me !

why? it's you i quoted, and Dilberts stance on all things American is well known. . .

why Hunter, i thought we were having a civil discourse? our first, i believe? i really would rather talk to you than Dilbert (he is a nice guy and all), but you are the one who said 'regime change is a war crime.' do you decline to answer my humble question, and lose ALL credibility?.

I was out = Life.  ? I had to meet some one.  Shees. My answer

Yes and his stance is that  Use of diplomacy through force is a War Crime. Regime change Was needed in many cases throughout history. In conflict, The Loser faces War Crimes. To quote Krupp " If Germany won Henry Ford would be sitting here. " We don't need to go over that do we ?

Burnzz wrote:

oh well, it was entertaining getting a youngsters' view on the world, while it lasted. hopefully you find a forum that doesn't require thought outside of bullet points, and allows the use of BB code. cya!

Now I am a youngster ? Make up your mind.

For the record. You were the 1st to depart from " Civil Discourse " and you did so once again, Without result.

sorry for derail 1

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-29 05:55:38)

burnzz wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I was out = Life.

stop calling people out when they don't immediately respond to you then, hypocrite. you fail to realize this forum has a world-wide membership, that the membership has different meanings for the same words, and even though English is the standard for the forum, members from other countries still use, format and respond in English better than you. i call you youngster because you said you remember Reagan; i voted for Reagan. i remember Nixon, and i remember the 1973 war in the middle east that has provoked this thread and many like it.

i grow weary of your bullet point responses, regardless of the fancy BB code usage, and your inability to think for yourself.

Good day, sir.

I thought it was the 1967 war that would be more relevant to this thread?

The Palestinians want peace even less than the Israelis.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-09-29 09:36:31)

Probebly true but irrelevant to the process of peace, If there really is one. For the record when the Israelis don't want peace they can really make you feel it.

They could've destroyed hamas and the palestinians etc 20 years ago if they really wanted to.

I agree that the colonisations outside of their borders aren't really helping their cause. Ironically though the towns they build outside the border are built by palestinian contractors.

dayarath wrote:

I agree that the colonisations outside of their borders aren't really helping their cause. Ironically though the towns they build outside the border are built by Palestinian contractors.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I agree. Some times it seems like deliberate provocation and sometimes it seems like people do it with out the Israeli Government approval. The view they like to give us is that " Its empty desert that they are settling in and turning it into productive farm land ". Would Palestinian Arabs be given access to infrastructure and irrigation if they had tried the same thing ? I have no idea.  The Barrier wall that was installed on and destroyed Palestinian property. That seemed a bit much if I had the real info on it.

If people other than the Israeli government are colonising the fault is at the palestinian government for not managing their own borders properly.

The fence they built does seem like some sort of berlin wall. While it's really on their side of the border I doubt they're winning any hearts and minds with creating something so extreme.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

The view they like to give us is that " Its empty desert that they are settling in and turning it into productive farm land ".Would Palestinian Arabs be given access to infrastructure and irrigation if they had tried the same thing ? I have no idea.

Doubt it. If the Israelis are such keen farmers theres plenty of barren desert in Israel to work on.

dayarath wrote:

If people other than the Israeli government are colonising the fault is at the palestinian government for not managing their own borders properly.

You're joking right? Israel controls Palestine and its borders.
Try reading the map again.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-30 06:11:37)