BF2S Forums Is peace in the ME inconvenient?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Who threatened to invade Iran? Or Syria?

The US has already invaded Iraq, Iran is clearly in the sights for military action now. Syria - Dunno, I've not looked too closely but I'll bet your fellow Pentagoons have a plan ready to go.

So everything is like Iraq? Iran isn't "clearly in the sights for military action now". No more than anyplace else. In fact, the administration has said--repeatedly--that they want a diplomatic solution to the Iran situation. Yet somehow you and others here interpret that fairly unambiguous language as threatening Iran with military force.

I'm willing to be there are plans that involve Syria. And just about every other country in the region (and other regions). Developing plans is what the military does. Having a plan for a given situation doesn't mean you intend to execute it--you just have it in case you need it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Has nothing to do with European countries doing nothing with regard to facilitating peace talks.

As stated before, there is very limited point in promoting peace talks until Israel and the US start acting like grown-up members of the UN.

As stated before, the US's actions in the UNSC have nothing to do with your government's lack of initiative and action regarding ME peace. If it was deemed worth your country's effort, your government would do something other than watch. Clearly, ME peace is not deemed worth your government's effort.

But whining about a situation you're unwilling to change is. Typical.

Dilbert_X wrote:

As humans are basically overgrown kids here's an analogy for you, hope you like it.

A 10 year old bully kid is beating to a pulp a defenceless 8 year old kid in the schoolyard. Behind the bully kid stands his 15yr old mate (from another school, no-ones really sure why he's there) with a baseball bat alternately shouting 'Hit him harder! oh better stop, hit him harder! look out teachers watching, here try these knuckledusters, don't hit so hard!'.
What do you do?
Walk away and do nothing? You're a coward and as bad as the bully.
Take on the bully, and get beaten to mush by his mate? Brave but foolhardy.
Stand on the sidelines shouting - 'Guys, lets sort this out like adults' and get accused of whining?
Run to the teacher - again a whiner.
Get his cousins together and throw pebbles at the bully and his mate? Doesn't achieve much but provides a distraction and makes you feel like you're doing something, might as well as you're next for a pasting whatever happens.
Put together a plan, sneak up behind the mate and stick a pin in his arse? Doesn't achieve much, but either he'll run off blubbing (bullies rarely like their own medicine) or go nuts and lay into all and sundry exposing himself for the thug he is. Plus while he's flailing blindly you'll be able to get in a few good smacks.
Personally I'd find out where the bully and his mate live and put snakes in their beds

Nice try, but it fails miserably. Israel wouldn't be a 10 year old bully in this scenario...more like a 6 year old new kid at school who's constantly getting picked on by multiple 8 year olds while the other kids and teaching staff sit back and watch then complain when the 6 year old defends himself.

If we go with it (for the sake of discussion), then you (and others) are standing on the sidelines whispering into your hands "glad I'm not involved" then just saying out loud "someone should really do something, but the 6 year old brought this on himself by being at school today".
All the while, the 15 year old is trying to get the gang of 10 8 year olds from beating the 6 year old to a pulp by getting one or two of the 8 year olds to sit down and discuss issues with the 6 year old.
Only the 6 year old has been jumped multiple times by multiple 8 year olds and gets shit thrown on him in the halls by 7 year olds while the teachers look on and tell the 6 year old it's his fault because he was in the hallway.
So the 6 year old's a bit leery and in the meantime has taken some martial arts classes to better defend himself against the multiple 8 year olds that keep saying he shouldn't even be at school.
And your group's still on the sideline complaining about how mean the 6 year old is, but doing nothing.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

How about this then. in 2003 a Swiss diplomat brought an offer from Iran to the US of full talks about the nuclear program, normalisation of relations and full recognition of Israel. The US censured the Swiss diplomat for daring to bring the offer to them. As Israel can't do anything that the US doesn't approve of, Europeans attemting peace talks is pointless as America won't accept it and therefore Israel can't accept it either.

The vetoed UN resolutions are the basis of any peace in the middle east, so the efforts to get them passed and their subsequent veto by the US are clear efforts to sort out the peace process. The only reason that the US enter into any talks is because they actively prevent any other attempts. If the US would just stop vetoing everything regarding Israel then the peace process can continue.

It's more than clear that any attempt by anyone other than the US to sort out the middle east will be blocked by the US. Until the US stop doing that then attempts by other nations to broker peace in the middle east is pointless.

Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit.

The US would welcome other powers getting involved and working a common effort toward peace in the region. Multiple independent efforts could be detrimental, but that doesn't mean the other powers couldn't be involved. They just choose not to.

And again, UN resolutions have NOTHING to do with a given country's initiative to work toward peace in the region. You're just using a tangentially-related issue as a crutch to justify doing nothing.

The UN resolutions are the basis of any realistic peace plan. The US openly rejects them. Even people like Carter and Clinton recognise that no American attempt at a peace plan has been remotely acceptable so far for anyone except the US and Israel. The world has come to a pretty much consesus regarding the Israel Palestine issue, it's only the US that's blocking it.

Why would the US welcome other power getting involved, they might actually succeed!?

Oh and as far as the Oslo accords go, I'm struggling to find any US involvment at all other than holding the signing ceremony. It appears to have been a Norwegian initiated and mediated talk. In fact the US appears to have been utterly unaware that the talks were even going on.

PureFodder wrote:

The UN resolutions are the basis of any realistic peace plan. The US openly rejects them. Even people like Carter and Clinton recognise that no American attempt at a peace plan has been remotely acceptable so far for anyone except the US and Israel. The world has come to a pretty much consesus regarding the Israel Palestine issue, it's only the US that's blocking it.

Why would the US welcome other power getting involved, they might actually succeed!?

Oh and as far as the Oslo accords go, I'm struggling to find any US involvment at all other than holding the signing ceremony. It appears to have been a Norwegian initiated and mediated talk. In fact the US appears to have been utterly unaware that the talks were even going on.

UN resolutions are the basis of nothing in this regard. If the parties want peace, they will negotiate. If other parties want peace, they will work with the Israelis and others to negotiate an agreement. What the UN has to say about it is really irrelevant.

Looking at the history of the Oslo Accords, it's fairly easy to see that Israel and the Palestinian Authority want peace, or else they wouldn't have met in secrecy and negotiated the Accords. Strange that they chose to have the official signing presided over by the US president and witnessed by the US and Russia. Wonder why they didn't turn to the ever-so-helpful Europeans...

Last edited by FEOS (2008-05-23 03:23:09)

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Israel does a pretty good job of putting up its own protective umbrella.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8758/umbrellann7.jpg

I don't recall the US protecting Israel in any of her wars. They pretty much operated on their own, unless you're privy to some information nobody else is.

And don't use the supply argument, as the countries Israel has historically fought have been armed to the teeth by the USSR (and then Russia).

Weapons supplies are an argument, money supply is an argument, vetos in the security council are an argument, and the threat the US represents for those who dare to attack Israel is an argument.  Or do you really think Israel would exist today without the US?  And I'm happy that still exists, but don't tell you are not a great umbrella to Israel.  And all this for free, uless you're privy to some information nobody else is.

And your group's still on the sideline complaining about how mean the 6 year old is, but doing nothing.

As we keep saying, after umpteen UN resolutions vetoed by the US, and every attempt at a negotiated peace ended when the Israelis start up with their targeted assassinations during the peace talks there is not an awful lot of point in getting involved.

We know the US does not want much to do with the UN, and you don't seem to know much about it either.
UN Charter.
'The Purposes of the United Nations are

1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace'

The US signed up to it, blocking its actions endlessly and calling for parties to negotiate agreements outside it are just the actions of a petulant child who doesn't get what he wants so goes into a sulk. The US needs to pay its subs BTW.

too_money2007 wrote:

The war on terror can never be won.

True

'War' is a concept, an agreement. Much like a game it is played by different sides roughly adhering to a set of rules and both sides have fixed goals. 'War on terror' is like attempting to play chess with a hyperactive 9 year old that just randomly sweeps pieces of the board.