BF2S Forums Israel Wants Peace

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What? Hamas?

They probably wouldn't be going after anyone. They'd be very busy trying to get the nation they've been after for almost a century sorted out.

Do you just see them all as one generic group of Middle Eastern terrorists? They do all have different agendas you know....

I know they have different agendas, but if Israel no longer existed, I have a feeling they'd very quickly get bored, and start lashing out with bombings in other countries.

Why?

The way I see it; at first they'd be really happy, then they'd be really busy, then it'd devolve into petty power struggles between different factions with unpredictable consequences.

I don't see any room in that schedule for them to go blowing other stuff up for no reason. You have to remember the Israelis have given them very good "reason" for about a 100 years. The idea that they would suddenly unleash an unprovoked terror campaign against other nations seems somewhat delusional.

usmarine wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Help the ones who want to leave move to Iran.  Then level the joint.

um ok.. so basically its pretty much the same solution i proposed..except i suggested to relocate the israelis in the US of A and leave the land to the Palestinians.

um ok.. no it is not.  The more powerful win.  That is life.  Bye bye Palestine.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-03-03 14:37:17)

usmarine wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Following that line of thought in 50 years there will be one country only, China.

ok.  go move there then.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-03-03 14:45:54)

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ed Morrissey wrote:

They have launched rockets continuously from Gaza at Sderot since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza three years ago. The Israelis acted with restraint until the launchers targeted Ashkelon this week, a much larger city, as an escalation of their attacks.

Now they want to haul dead civilians in front of journalists to complain about the Israeli counterattack. That might work except for two points. First, Gazans deliberately targeted Israeli civilians in Sderot and Ashkelon, or at the very least didn’t bother to target anything at all and had no worries whether they killed women and children. Second, the Gazans locate their rocket launchers in civilian centers, essentially using women and children as human shields.

But the Palestinians are completely innocent.

Nowhere in my post it says they are, but let's be honest, how many people died coz of those rockets, even when it's wrong to launch them?  Who is launching the rockets, Abbas government or extremists?  Why don't the IDF get the extremists instead of killing innocent people?  Who is killing Palestinians, a bunch of extremists or the government of Israel?

CameronPoe wrote:

The person who initiates a war is the one who fires first. Soviet bombers flying towards US territory is not an accurate analogy of the pre-67 situation. For it to be an accurate analogy Egyptian bombers would have had to have been en route to Tel Aviv when Israel fired.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

But the US and the UK ARE NOT announcing to the world that we are going to destroy Iran first of all.

It is ridiculous to say Israel is at fault because they decided NOT to sit back and let themselves be put at a tactical disadvantage by letting itself be over run before doing something about it.

Are you saying that back in the early 80's if the US was tracking Soviet bombers in-route to the US coastline and they announced they were going to attack the US, that the US would have been the aggressor because they shot down the bombers before the Soviets could drop their bombs?

I know you do not believe that bullshit, and as such your logic is flawed into believing Israel was the aggressor because they refused to let themselves get invaded first. complete bullshit

The person who initiates a war is the one who fires first. Soviet bombers flying towards US territory is not an accurate analogy of the pre-67 situation. For it to be an accurate analogy Egyptian bombers would have had to have been en route to Tel Aviv when Israel fired.

The US and the UK are making the EXACT same motions and using the exact same rhetoric as they did prior to invading Iraq. They veil their words so that people like you can pretend they're righteous and peaceful (when in actual fact they are the most militarily active countries in the world today, with probably two of the largest military industrial complexes on the planet).

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine wrote:

You know some people choose to block the punch rather then waiting for it to knock them out.  To each his own I guess.

Mmmm, that wasn't blocking a punch, that was an uppercut.

"The best defense is a good offense"

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

"The best defense is a good offense"

That's football.

The tactic is still sound and apparently proven very correct I would say

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess in your world, a mugger is allowed to sue you for attacking him when the mugger pulls a gun on you demanding your wallet. After all you "threw the first punch" so you should be charged with aggravated assault.

No way will you ever convince me that, you are supposed to take whatever is thrown at you before you do something about it. 
Such non-sense, and a colossally ridiculous and absurd position.

No in my world, if a mugger pulls a gun on me and I retaliate in self defence I am clear of conscience and the courts will likely let me walk free, unsued and unshackled. Movement of troops within your own sovereign territory is not akin to pointing a gun to someone. If Russia decided to attack you for sending several battalions and carriers to sovereign US territory in the Bering Straits for training exercises, in the current climate, would you view Russia as the aggressor? Your analogy is flawed. The Arab nations had not in fact pulled the gun on Israel, they had just threatened to pull a gun. Is it incumbent on the US that they should station all of their troops as far away from other nations as possible, so as not to look as though they pose a threat? Or should US troops be free to be stationed anywhere on US territory? Should Egypt only have been allowed to station their troops on the Libyan border or something (when not 10 years prior Israel had launched a unilateral attack on them cos the Brits/French asked them to!!!!)?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Those troops were pointing their guns at Israel.

The level of intent and imminency of attack of course being completely and utterly a matter of opinion. If I was an Arab nation the border I would guard most closely would be the one facing Israel - not that of a fellow Arab nation.

lowing wrote:

THis is why the US does not do train exercises unannounced.....

When an entire region masses its troops along your border, cuts off your water ways and trade routes, and tells you it is going to destroy you, you are not assuming it is a training exercise It is not an accurate analogy at all...........YOUR views are flawed Cam.

We talked about sanctions and embargoes before lowing. The west does it, Arabs are entitled to do it. We're just simply going to have to disagree. I know the Arabs wanted to and will always want to destroy Israel - they have quite legitimate grievances on that front - but the fact of the matter is that those tanks might not have rolled for many years, but were prompted to due to Israeli fire. I suppose my judgement is clouded because the Arabs were in the right in terms of the 67 war and the state of Israel was a big massive wrong. The very creation of the state was a provocation larger than any stationing of troops along borders.

um ok.. so basically its pretty much the same solution i proposed..except i suggested to relocate the israelis in the US of A and leave the land to the Palestinians.