BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Israel Bombings - Possible War Crimes

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-10-2014, 04:43 PM   #221
Petros
Banned
56
Rep
1,382
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkM3 View Post
Why don't you stop posting articles from bullshit websites.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/31/sources-hamas-quickly-puts-dissent-gaza-kills-palestinian-protesters/
I left the bullshit jewish zionist websites to you. This is Human Rights Watch.
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 04:48 PM   #222
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Oh, yes....and that's just what both camps need. NOT!!!

Perhaps if more the social media discussion were not as polarized as is the actual situation on the ground and instead voiced more balance and more ire with the fact that both the main players aren't really making meaningful strides toward a solution, the Israeli government and the Palestinians/Hamas would notice that support for both their flavors of extremism is waning.

Surely I can't be the only one who sees enough blame to toss at both sides and is, quite frankly, fed up with the bickering. Truly, I don't care who's right and who's wrong anymore; I just want to see stability and peace in the region/country. If that means both sides give up something(s) they dearly want, so be it. This "my way or the highway" crap that both sides seem to be holding out for is BS!

All the best.
Why are you still posting? I don't think you have much of an audience here.

All you are doing is stating the obvious..of course the desired outcome in the current Israeli-Palestinain is a mutually signed peace agreement. That's like saying everyone wants to win the lotto and buy a nice house.
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 05:11 PM   #223
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
You do realize @Petros that the human rights watch article is based purely on hearsay. The author even acknowledges that; he states very clearly that the source information was based on testimony from Palestinian witnesses. I don't if this article is true or not, but that should be taken into account.
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 06:28 PM   #224
TS135i
piggy in the mirror
Australia
40
Rep
596
Posts

Drives: 2013 6MT 135i
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia

iTrader: (0)

I just cant see the world is going to put up with this tit-for-tack violence for much longer. Both sides can and will justify their reasons for using deadly force, but I feel that era is coming to an end.
The world is a much smaller place today with technology and a lot more people are informed/educated to current world events (the fact we are discussing this matter on a car forum ). Whenever something reaches a critical point, something always changes for the good of evolution.
__________________
135i Coupe N55 PPK+JB4
X3 30d LCI
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 09:12 PM   #225
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
Why are you still posting? I don't think you have much of an audience here.

All you are doing is stating the obvious..of course the desired outcome in the current Israeli-Palestinain is a mutually signed peace agreement. That's like saying everyone wants to win the lotto and buy a nice house.
The post of mine that you quoted is the first one I've made in this thread.

I'm stating it because I still don't see anyone doing anything but pointing fingers. I haven't seen one constructive and viable idea put forth that addresses how to solve the problem.

I offered one in a different thread -- alter Israel's constitution to enfranchise the Palestinians -- and nobody had a thing to say about it. I guess, therefore, you could be right; perhaps people don't really want to see a solution. I wonder if you do? My post was at the very least, neutral in nature and you chose not to build on it and take it somewhere positive, but rather to belittle me for having posted my thoughts.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 09:28 PM   #226
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I'm stating it because I still don't see anyone doing anything but pointing fingers. I haven't seen one constructive and viable idea put forth that addresses how to solve the problem.

I offered one in a different thread -- alter Israel's constitution to enfranchise the Palestinians -- and nobody had a thing to say about it. I guess, therefore, you could be right; perhaps people don't really want to see a solution. I wonder if you do? My post was at the very least, neutral in nature and you chose not to build on it and take it somewhere positive, but rather to belittle me for having posted my thoughts.

All the best.
All the best? Every time you sign out...sounds cheesy. Anyways, you have posted similar responses on the other Palestine thread and they all have the same tone: 'everyone stop arguing, we need to find common ground.' I don't have a problem with that and in fact agree with that concept. I just think, given the venue for your 'sage advice,' that you're beating a dead horse.

Also, yes enfranchising the Palestinians in the Israeli constitution is an obvious and much needed answer to the current conflict...but brother, that only solves half the problem. There are a good number of Palestinian extremists (aka Hamas) who don't want appeasement or political equality...they have stated clearly what their goals are.

There are a lot of 3rd party bystanders, like yourself, who believe only peaceful means can bring a peaceful solution to this thing. What is your answer or opinion on Palestinian extremists who don't want peace?
Appreciate 0
      08-10-2014, 09:41 PM   #227
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar
United_States
5853
Rep
2,299
Posts

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TS135i View Post
I just cant see the world is going to put up with this tit-for-tack violence for much longer. Both sides can and will justify their reasons for using deadly force, but I feel that era is coming to an end.
The world is a much smaller place today with technology and a lot more people are informed/educated to current world events (the fact we are discussing this matter on a car forum ). Whenever something reaches a critical point, something always changes for the good of evolution.
Always... ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
The post of mine that you quoted is the first one I've made in this thread.

I'm stating it because I still don't see anyone doing anything but pointing fingers. I haven't seen one constructive and viable idea put forth that addresses how to solve the problem.

I offered one in a different thread -- alter Israel's constitution to enfranchise the Palestinians -- and nobody had a thing to say about it. I guess, therefore, you could be right; perhaps people don't really want to see a solution. I wonder if you do? My post was at the very least, neutral in nature and you chose not to build on it and take it somewhere positive, but rather to belittle me for having posted my thoughts.

All the best.
I get what you're saying. Neither side is offering a constructive proposition. Neither in the middle east or on the forum. For me, I guess i don't think there is a solution. Sounds morbid or cold or like a copout but how would you negotiate peace with your current neighbor who has their mission of destroying you screen printed on all their t-shirts?

There are people on this earth who don't want to see the existence of other people. Now i'm not a middle east historian, but it would seem to me that Hamas' charter, verbal intent, physical actions, seem to confirm them as some of those people who don't want to see other people exist. No matter the reason or whether that reason is right or wrong, how do you negotiate with such people?

If Hamas wants peace all they have to do is stop offensive actions. There has been too much world attention given to this issue for it to just go away should they stop. If they stop, they have a world stage to stand on and propose talks of an equitable solution that leads to peace.

If they stop offensive actions and Israel continues offensive actions, they have accomplished their mission of outing Israel to the world. The common denominator though, is that Hamas needs to stop it's offensive agenda.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic59612_1.gif
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 12:11 AM   #228
grimlock
Colonel
643
Rep
2,004
Posts

Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

iTrader: (0)

Haha, gotta love Dalko telling Tony to get his middle-ground peace mongering out of here..

I believe there are people from both sides who do not like the existence of the other, and these people have probably signed up and are on the front lines pulling the trigger (or on the forums), however they can only act if people are behind them wrt abuses of the other side.
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 12:12 AM   #229
TS135i
piggy in the mirror
Australia
40
Rep
596
Posts

Drives: 2013 6MT 135i
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
If they stop offensive actions and Israel continues offensive actions, they have accomplished their mission of outing Israel to the world. The common denominator though, is that Hamas needs to stop it's offensive agenda.
No one really knows Israeli/Hamas true agenda, could it be Israel has Hamas on their payroll? I sometimes think when conflicts rage on for decades like this, those pulling the strings don't want a solution to the conflict for one reason or other.
__________________
135i Coupe N55 PPK+JB4
X3 30d LCI
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 07:29 AM   #230
bkM3
Captain
34
Rep
641
Posts

Drives: 2013 BMW 528xi Black/Black
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brooklyn

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TS135i View Post
No one really knows Israeli/Hamas true agenda, could it be Israel has Hamas on their payroll? I sometimes think when conflicts rage on for decades like this, those pulling the strings don't want a solution to the conflict for one reason or other.
Come on seriously? Time to take off the tinfoil hat.
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 10:42 AM   #231
Petros
Banned
56
Rep
1,382
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/...ro-genocide-ad

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...554583,00.html

o

Zionist scumbags advocating genocide and baby killing. Despicable.
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 11:13 AM   #232
bkM3
Captain
34
Rep
641
Posts

Drives: 2013 BMW 528xi Black/Black
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brooklyn

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
serious question, do you even read the articles that you post??
first article is from eletronic intifada which is a known Palestinian propaganda machine. you cant trust anything they post. they mentioned that hamas does not use human shields, i have posted proof numerous times and it has been documented, this is not a topic of debate, its a fact.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...554583,00.html

this one that you posted actually raises some good points that you refused to acknowledge earlier such as the fact that israel supplies water and energy. to gaza.

go find me another war where one side was actually providing food and supplies to the other while simultaneously fighting it

"In a war between states, each side is entitled to use its ability to pressure the other side. The fact that we are fighting with one hand and supplying food and energy to the enemy state with the other hand is absurd. This generosity strengthens and extends the ability of the enemy state of Gaza to fight us."
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 12:02 PM   #233
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
...
I get what you're saying. Neither side is offering a constructive proposition. Neither in the middle east or on the forum. For me, I guess i don't think there is a solution. Sounds morbid or cold or like a copout but how would you negotiate peace with your current neighbor who has their mission of destroying you screen printed on all their t-shirts?
I think there is a solution. I hope it's a peaceful one. I'm not so naive as to think that there absolutely is a peaceful one that can be realized. I'm close to feeling that way, not because there isn't in fact such a solution, but because I'm not sure that enough folks on each side want to find and implement the peaceful solution.

Judging by this forum discussion, it doesn't seem that people here want that either. The folks on each side of the matter seem as thought they are compelled to have to win the debate rather than to win the peace. If you aren't trying to win peace, then you damn sure won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
There are people on this earth who don't want to see the existence of other people. Now i'm not a middle east historian, but it would seem to me that Hamas' charter, verbal intent, physical actions, seem to confirm them as some of those people who don't want to see other people exist. No matter the reason or whether that reason is right or wrong, how do you negotiate with such people?

If Hamas wants peace all they have to do is stop offensive actions. There has been too much world attention given to this issue for it to just go away should they stop. If they stop, they have a world stage to stand on and propose talks of an equitable solution that leads to peace.

If they stop offensive actions and Israel continues offensive actions, they have accomplished their mission of outing Israel to the world. The common denominator though, is that Hamas needs to stop it's offensive agenda.
Hamas Charter:
To be honest, if some pretender to nationhood promulgated a charter that explicitly called for the end to my existence, were I to have the physical ability to do so, I'd have wiped them from the face of the planet the very day they announced that charter. I wouldn't have bothered to wait and see what happens because I know "from jump" that nothing good is going to come of that. Maybe exterminating the threat wouldn't produce good things either, but least with that route there's some uncertainty whereas letting them exist with that charter of theirs leaves no doubt that there's no good to come of it.

The problem now, of course, is that Israel didn't act right then and there. They were too "mamby pamby" to act and own their actions. That was their mistake, and now here we are.

Will it work to take that course now? I don't know. The time to do it was then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock View Post
Haha, gotta love Dalko telling Tony to get his middle-ground peace mongering out of here..

I believe there are people from both sides who do not like the existence of the other, and these people have probably signed up and are on the front lines pulling the trigger (or on the forums), however they can only act if people are behind them wrt abuses of the other side.
FWIW, I'm not a "middle ground" guy. I very firmly believe in taking action, and I don't necessarily feel that the action taken must tow the middle ground. Indeed, what I've been suggesting is that both sides take what I think for them would be considered extreme action. My opinion is that both sides should announce they are no longer concerned about "having their way" and are instead willing to give a little in return for getting a little.

I know compromise is generally thought of as "middle ground," but it's only the middle ground when it's happening in a stable, non-warring environment. In the case of the Pal's and I'lis, compromising would be quite an extreme, polarizing choice for either side's leaders to exercise because it forces them into contention with a significant portion of their support base. Telling the foundation of one's support system, the place where one reliably has found succor, is quite an extreme move and it's risky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...

There are a lot of 3rd party bystanders, like yourself, who believe only peaceful means can bring a peaceful solution to this thing. What is your answer or opinion on Palestinian extremists who don't want peace?
If that is absolutely true, then I propose:
  1. Enfranchise Palestinians -- I think that's self explanatory; however, for as obvious a thing as you believe it to be, I disagree that it is. I disagree because in over half a century, it hasn't been done. I will say I don't think it's especially easy to accomplish, but it's not impossible to accomplish.

    Above, Grimlock wrote about the folks who support "their guy" WRT abuses on either side. Those folks are, IMO, the extremists and they are the one's who so far have had the dais. It's time someone else be given the bully pulpit and heard. Enfranchisement isolates the warmongers -- extremists -- on both sides and gives credence to the internal opposition on both sides. It provides the folks -- on both sides -- who want to "win the peace" with a vehicle to act on their common beliefs. It gives them a voice.

    Enfranchisement also makes visible that people who were formerly seen to be rivals have found something they can agree upon. That agreement is the first step and it could well open the door to options other than the two others I suggested below.
  2. Cut the wagon train that provides resources to the warmongers. I think this would have to be an action directed only at the Palestinians seeing as Israel is a nation state and that fact gives them options the Palestinians simply don't have. Yes, U.S. could cut the supply line to Israel, but I seriously doubt any U.S. politician -- let alone the numbers of them it'd take -- has the fortitude to forsake his/her re-election to make that happen. Doing that, IMO, takes no more balls than enfranchising the Palestinians in Israel; however, there's a one major difference: U.S. citizens aren't dying by the hundreds and thousands in U.S. over this issue. That key difference is what makes it far harder to have the strength to take such a difficult step. Necessity is the mother of more that just invention.
  3. Use weapons to destroy the opposition. Unfortunately, as much as war is undesirable, when the parties to the dispute are both unwilling to yield a plot of land, war has to be considered. Were land not part of the equation, war might not have to be on the table.

    Much as I don't like warring, and I would do everything else I could before initiating that sort of action, I do believe there is no such thing as a limited war. I believe that "limited warring" is merely a synonym for "never ending war." In this sense, I'm very much like the Romans of ancient times: when they'd decided they'd had enough of you, your days were numbered and that was that.

    As far as I'm concerned, this thing between Israel and Hamas is war. The line between "war" and "not war" has been crossed, IMO. It is no longer a police action; it's not self-defense; it is not terrorism or a response to terrorism. It's war.

    If one is going to take up arms against another, then do it, prosecute the war thoroughly and get it over with. In the case of the Pal's and I'lis, I think both of them have been too "mamby pamby" about it, and I think that because neither has absolutely decimated the other sufficiently that there will for the remainder of all parties involved lives' any retaliation. If I have an enemy that's willing to die for for their beliefs, and I'm at the point of war, leave it to me and they will end up dead -- be it by my hand or their own.

    As I see the situation, this is really only an Israeli option. Does it have potential consequences that transcend the space of Israel? Of course it does. The thing is, I don't honestly think the world wants to be at war over the Pal's and I don't believe Hamas has the reach to take the war beyond that immediate region.

    I wouldn't go nuclear, but there wouldn't either be anyone left -- friend or foe -- when I got through. Although ethnic cleansing wouldn't be the goal, the net result would very likely be the same. I'd surround the place so that nobody gets in or out, and bomb it to kingdom come, and them I'd send it ground troops to mop up and take out whomever survived. I might get executed as a war criminal too, but so long as I achieved my goal, I'd be willing to make that sacrifice; at least my descendents would live in peace. There would not be one more year, let alone another 70 years, of this "tit for tat" that we've been seeing.

    Enfranchisement isolates the warmongers on both sides and gives credence to the internal opposition on both sides. It provides them with a vehicle to act on their common beliefs. It gives them a voice. We know those people already exist, but we don't seem to hear much from them. Enfranchisement also makes visible that people who were formerly seen to be rivals have found something they can agree upon. That agreement is the first step and it could well open the door to options other than the two others I suggested above.

    As our world exists today, the radical Muslims seem to think they are the only people who are willing to die for their beliefs. Well, I have news for them; they ain't. And when they find out that leaders, people, nations that are more physically powerful than they are are also willing to die for what they believe in, that tactic of terrorism will stop because it's adherents will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot win that way.

    Right now, terrorism works because the world has a bunch of p*ssys and punks running the show. Western society has, somewhat rightly, earned a reputation as a bunch of "chicken sh*t" nations filled with people who are afraid to stand up for themselves. This is, IMO, no different than the school yard bully situation we all faced as kids. Once you showed the bully that you could take a punch and give one back, he calmed his sorry ass down and you both moved on. No, nobody wants to "take a punch," but sometimes one must.

    Lastly, on the matter of the war action, I don't think I actually care which side wins. If Israel wins, it's likely little else in the world would change. If Hamas wins and Israel is the cowed loser, I think the rest of the world would get along just fine with the Arabs/Muslims who assume power. I believe that the problems U.S. and it's allies have with the Arabs whom we call terrorists is mostly about the U.S.' "come hell or high water" pandering to Israel rather than because the rest of the world has some inherent problem with Arabs and Muslims.
Now having suggested those three things, I will say that I don't consider myself a diplomat or a political leader. Part of why I ascribe to a democratic republic is that I'm perfectly content to let the folks chosen to lead lead. Frankly, I haven't seen much that suggests the folks in power are right people for the job. Were they, they'd have come up with better ideas than I have. Yes, I agree that some action is better than none for minimally (one hopes), we all learn from past mistakes. All I see, however, is the same mistakes repeated over and over.

As for my "all the best" closing, I say that every time because I want to be clear that I don't wish you or any other reader any ill will. This is a discussion board and I'm capable of having a discussion and disagreeing without harboring negative feelings about the poster/people who are party to the discussion. I'm surprised you felt obligated to comment on my closing.

Once again, you showed you are more keen to disparage me than you are to offer some sort of tangible solution-- workable or not, so long as it's not offered as a joke -- which is what you bid me to do and I have. Do you have some solution of your own, or perhaps you can build upon one or more of the actionable ideas I or someone else suggested?

Note: if you have offered a solution (or several), I'm sorry I've not seen it/them. Point me to it/them, and I'll respond to in the manner I've asked of you, building upon it, agreeing with it as a worthwhile approach or something else that addresses your specific points rather than your salutation or greeting. I won't tell you you don't deserve to post your thoughts or attempt to weakly insult/discredit you over something other than the quality/lack thereof and relevance of the thoughts you expressed.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 08-11-2014 at 12:08 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 12:25 PM   #234
Petros
Banned
56
Rep
1,382
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

holocaust survivors against israeli atrocities
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 12:53 PM   #235
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
@tony20009, dude you need to learn how to condense your posts. No one has the time or desire to read a 12 paragraph response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
If that is absolutely true, then I propose:
[LIST=1][*]Enfranchise Palestinians...
We've already discussed that and I think many neutral, and even some biased, parties agree on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
[*]Cut the wagon train that provides resources to the warmongers. I think this would have to be an action directed only at the Palestinians seeing as Israel is a nation state and that fact gives them options the Palestinians simply don't have. Yes, U.S. could cut the supply line to Israel, but I seriously doubt any U.S. politician -- let alone the numbers of them it'd take -- has the fortitude to forsake his/her re-election to make that happen. Doing that, IMO, takes no more balls than enfranchising the Palestinians in Israel; however, there's a one major difference: U.S. citizens aren't dying by the hundreds and thousands in U.S. over this issue. That key difference is what makes it far harder to have the strength to take such a difficult step. Necessity is the mother of more that just invention.
Cutting the weapon supply line to the Israelis would do little. They are connected internationally to get weapons from elsewhere as well they make a lot of their own weapons. But all that aside, the Israeli government is one of our only true allies in the Middle East, and one of the only truly democratic states. Cutting them off would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Hamas could be cut off however. They receive hundreds of millions from the US and much more from the international community. Much of that money goes towards infrastructure, governance, civil services, ect.. the problem is that Hamas has its own budget, and with all the "aid" money they get, they have a free hand to spend their regular budget money on weapons and offensive operations. Cinching that money line, would either force them to stop financing their terrorist campaigns or would out them as frauds to their own electorate when they refuse to divert cash to what little civil service they have. Any opinion on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
[*]Use weapons to destroy the opposition. Unfortunately, as much as war is undesirable, when the parties to the dispute are both unwilling to yield a plot of land, war has to be considered. Were land not part of the equation, war might not have to be on the table.

Much as I don't like warring, and I would do everything else I could before initiating that sort of action, I do believe there is no such thing as a limited war. I believe that "limited warring" is merely a synonym for "never ending war." In this sense, I'm very much like the Romans of ancient times: when they'd decided they'd had enough of you, your days were numbered and that was that.

As far as I'm concerned, this thing between Israel and Hamas is war. The line between "war" and "not war" has been crossed, IMO. It is no longer a police action; it's not self-defense; it is not terrorism or a response to terrorism. It's war.
@tony20009 wtf are you talking about? Going to war with Israel and Palestine? How the hell is that going to solve the current conflict? Fight the one country that we consider an ally? Go and fight one of the most entrenched terrorist groups in the Middle East. Instead of focusing on their traditional Egyptian and Israeli enemies, Hamas can focus their attention and hatred on us? How does that make sense?

All that politically-correct BS you were spewing earlier about 'finding common ground' certainly doesn't match up with what you're saying here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
As our world exists today, the radical Muslims seem to think they are the only people who are willing to die for their beliefs. Well, I have news for them; they ain't. And when they find out that leaders, people, nations that are more physically powerful than they are are also willing to die for what they believe in, that tactic of terrorism will stop because it's adherents will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot win that way.
A lot of tough talk from an internet forum poster. I can tell you from experience @tony20009, radical Islam won't be going anyway anytime soon and it certainly won't get eradicated by brute force, like you suggest it so easily can. We've been fighting extremist groups for over a decade now, and despite the beating they've taken, they're still plotting, planning, and fighting. They've expanded their reach and influence in many parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Also, you really gloss over the whole issue by focusing on radical Muslims. A lot of the enemies we fought in Iraq and still fight in Afghanistan aren't hardcore, extremist, Al-Qaeda die-hards...they're farmboys, locals, young uneducated men who don't like seeing foreigners on their home turf.

The overwhelming majority of the fight we faced in Iraq wasn't from Al Qaeda, it was from Shia militias and disenfranchised Sunni tribes. That's why when the US military persuaded the Sunni tribes to help clean up the streets and clear out the bad elements(AKA the Al Anbar awakening) the insurgency in Iraq lost much of its steam back in 2006-2008.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
This is, IMO, no different than the school yard bully situation we all faced as kids. Once you showed the bully that you could take a punch and give one back, he calmed his sorry ass down and you both moved on. No, nobody wants to "take a punch," but sometimes one must.
We've been "punching" a lot of these "school-yard bullies" for some time now, but they've only gotten angrier. Military "punches" only solve part of the problem...long term peace and stability is predicated on stable, democratic governments taking hold in the middle east.

The biggest irony of all in the middle east is that the one group that Al-Qaeda and other extremists hate more than us western "infidels" are the autocratic/secular regimes that run most of the Middle East, regimes that, for the most part, we help fund.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Lastly, on the matter of the war action, I don't think I actually care which side wins. If Israel wins, it's likely little else in the world would change. If Hamas wins and Israel is the cowed loser, I think the rest of the world would get along just fine with the Arabs/Muslims who assume power.
You should want Israel to prevail. If they lose their entire existence is at stake. Hamas has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel and rid the Levant of all Jews. Iran has made the same overtures. In the past, Egypt and Syria, among others, went to war with Israel with that purpose in mind. Whether that meant physically killing all of the Jews or deporting them, I couldn't tell you.

@tony20009 it's very easy for you to sit on the sidelines and play the neutral arbiter. For an Israeli, it's not so. They've been fighting for the very survival the moment their country was born. At times, they came very close to getting overwhelmed. Their country's borders are constantly being infiltrated by terrorists who intend to bomb or kidnap and kill citizens.

I see what Israel has done in the past. I fault them for their past crimes. I understand how they expelled many Palestinians from their homes. I know that they have their fair share of war crimes. But I see a distinct difference between the Israelis and their enemies.

When 3 Isreali teenagers were killed a month ago, Hamas or those responsible did nothing to adjudicate the perpetrators. When a Palestinian boy was killed in reprisal, the Israelis arrested those responsible and brought them up on charges. When Hamas goes to war, they intentionally target civilian structures and suicide bomb crowded market places. When Israel goes to war they put out advance notice that all civilians should either take shelter or move away. There is a distinct moral and legal difference in how the Israelis conduct themselves. Israel's past transgressions were exceptions, not the norm. For Hamas, it's the other way around. So if you want to place Hamas and Israel on the same moral ground by saying "you don't care which side wins" go ahead...just realize that says more about your own moral standards than your views on international politics.

Edit: I don't have a specific plan on how to 'solve' the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and neither do you by the looks of your vague and overly simplistic 3 step plan. I'm well versed on the region's history, but I certainly don't have the insight that UN, State Department, and think tank personnel have. I think a solution needs to be worked out by professionals, not by internet wanna-be's. That being said, I do see obvious prerequisites for peace, some of which have been identified by you and me: Palestinian enfranchisement; disenfranchising Hamas; removing more Israeli West Bank settlements.

Last edited by Dalko43; 08-11-2014 at 01:09 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 02:28 PM   #236
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quite a few of the points you raise I already addressed (or raised) in my 12 paragraph post. I won't repeat those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...Hamas could be cut off however. They receive hundreds of millions from the US and much more from the international community. Much of that money goes towards infrastructure, governance, civil services, ect.. the problem is that Hamas has its own budget, and with all the "aid" money they get, they have a free hand to spend their regular budget money on weapons and offensive operations. Cinching that money line, would either force them to stop financing their terrorist campaigns or would out them as frauds to their own electorate when they refuse to divert cash to what little civil service they have. Any opinion on that?
I think, as I said, Hamas is the only party between the two that can be cut off as we're saying. I think it's well worth doing and I think the benefits would include what you describe as well as the direct, anti-combative ones I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
@tony20009 wtf are you talking about? Going to war with Israel and Palestine? How the hell is that going to solve the current conflict? Fight the one country that we consider an ally? Go and fight one of the most entrenched terrorist groups in the Middle East. Instead of focusing on their traditional Egyptian and Israeli enemies, Hamas can focus their attention and hatred on us? How does that make sense?
I'm not suggesting anyone else go to war with Israel or Hamas. I'm suggesting that Israel and Hamas take the gloves off, have at it, one of them coming out the clear winner such that the other cannot rise against them again. If that means extermination of one or the other -- and I don't really care which one ceases to exist -- I'm okay with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
All that politically-correct BS you were spewing earlier about 'finding common ground' certainly doesn't match up with what you're saying here.
Politically correct? I've never sought to be politically correct. I have sought to propose ideas that speak to finding a peaceful solution but that has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with my begrudging acceptance that that is the tack to which Israel and others committed years ago and I believe it's time to carry it to its conclusion whereupon something about it works or it doesn't. My approach may fail, but unlike many people, I'm not afraid of failing; I'm afraid of what happens if I don't try something that has a chance of succeeding. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, but I am certain that doing nothing and just talking about doing something will achieve nothing.

If failure be the outcome of the peaceful approach I suggested, or it just cannot be attempted, then so be it. That leaves war as the final option. I'm all for peaceful and diplomatic efforts, but I won't try that forever. Perhaps my patience with trying those alternatives is greater than some folks' and less than others, but when my patience is gone, I would be equally committed to winning a war and pursue doing so no less diligently. I am very definitely, in war matters, a "take no prisoners" sort of fellow. The only thing guaranteed about a war with me at the helm of one side is that one side won't survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
A lot of tough talk from an internet forum poster. I can tell you from experience @tony20009, radical Islam won't be going anyway anytime soon and it certainly won't get eradicated by brute force, like you suggest it so easily can. We've been fighting extremist groups for over a decade now, and despite the beating they've taken, they're still plotting, planning, and fighting. They've expanded their reach and influence in many parts of Africa and the Middle East.
First, I didn't suggest there's anything easy about it. It's physically difficult to do and it's morally difficult to find the will to do it. Nonetheless, it can be done, although not under the auspices of the the "limited war" crap that has been the theme of the past decade or more. Moreover, nobody has yet tried it with the vigor I propose. Make no mistake, the only way to end a war, IMO, is to win it so that there isn't anyone left who can or wants to fight that war for that purpose again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
Also, you really gloss over the whole issue by focusing on radical Muslims. A lot of the enemies we fought in Iraq and still fight in Afghanistan aren't hardcore, extremist, Al-Qaeda die-hards...they're farmboys, locals, young uneducated men who don't like seeing foreigners on their home turf.

The overwhelming majority of the fight we faced in Iraq wasn't from Al Qaeda, it was from Shia militias and disenfranchised Sunni tribes. That's why when the US military persuaded the Sunni tribes to help clean up the streets and clear out the bad elements(AKA the Al Anbar awakening) the insurgency in Iraq lost much of its steam back in 2006-2008.
I'm not gong to discuss Afghanistan or Iraq in this thread.

Applying that to Israel and the contested lands there, I have to assume you are suggesting that there are Palestinians who think that the Israelis are the "foreigners" of which you wrote above and that those folks aren't of a mind to be at war over the matter. To those individuals, and assuming war is the thing I've decided must be the course of action, I'd say they need to get out of the way or die where they stand. Once I'm done prosecuting the war, they can come back and if they are of a mind to pursue a diplomatic solution, I'll be willing to do that with them.

If they come back and keep fighting, I won't bother a second time bother to tell them to get out of the way; they will suffer the same fate as those who fought the first time. As with all things, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution and if I'm pushed to war as the solution, one won't have to wonder what one can expect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
We've been "punching" a lot of these "school-yard bullies" for some time now, but they've only gotten angrier. Military "punches" only solve part of the problem...long term peace and stability is predicated on stable, democratic governments taking hold in the middle east.
The only reason they are here to be angrier is because we didn't punch hard enough.

As for the military solution only solving part of the problem, well, yes, that's true. Those political problems you mention, however, aren't all that hard to address when there are no people in the area being considered. I think you perceive that I mean less than what I'm saying. For me, if war is the solution, there won't be anyone left to govern or care for. My next concern would be burials and repopulating the area with people who are from elsewhere.

Israel, the geographic place on Earth, is small. It's not China, Russia, the US or even Alaska. It's small enough that the resistance inside Israel can be quite literally obliterated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...@tony20009 it's very easy for you to sit on the sidelines and play the neutral arbiter. For an Israeli, it's not so. They've been fighting for the very survival the moment their country was born. At times, they came very close to getting overwhelmed. Their country's borders are constantly being infiltrated by terrorists who intend to bomb or kidnap and kill citizens.
It is much easier for me to be the neutral arbiter. As such, it doesn't shock me that Israel isn't cottoning to folks like me, and perhaps even the ideas I've offered. What shocks me is that Israel hasn't taken the warlike route I've suggested.

I know if I were facing an enemy that declared the end of my existence as their purpose in life, the rest of the world be damned, I'd make them eat their words and deal with the consequences from the rest of the world afterwards. Unless the rest of the world is of a mind to bring my existence to an end, whatever be the consequence(s), it's better than having been exterminated or living daily with a real and nearby threat of that happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...Edit: I don't have a specific plan on how to 'solve' the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and neither do you by the looks of your vague and overly simplistic 3 step plan. I'm well versed on the region's history, but I certainly don't have the insight that UN, State Department, and think tank personnel have. I think a solution needs to be worked out by professionals, not by internet wanna-be's. That being said, I do see obvious prerequisites for peace, some of which have been identified by you and me: Palestinian enfranchisement; disenfranchising Hamas; removing more Israeli West Bank settlements.
I don't think my plan is ideal, but it is a plan and it's more of one than I've seen elsewhere on this forum. I don't at all mind someone, you or others, throwing stones at my plan, but along with the stones, they/you need to propose something as an alternative, not just tell me what's wrong with my plan or call it incomplete. I don't think anyone here expects to find or would have a comprehensive plan to offer. This being a casual forum and a casual discussion in that forum, a fully fleshed out plan is likely well beyond any of our scopes.

I wasn't and am not asking that you have a "U.N.-ready" idea/plan, only that you have one, a non-joking alternative, to offer. If one is of a mind to tell others what won't work -- be it you here or the diplomats trying to solve the problem -- one must then also have an idea of something that would. Failing that, what constructive contribution does one add, be it to this discussion in the forum, or the real situation on the ground in Israel and in the halls of diplomacy?

You said it's easy for me to sit on the sidelines and play armchair diplomat, and yes, it easy to do that. What's even easier is to tell someone that their ideas won't work and concurrently offering nothing that's better, or at least different -- not a modification of their idea nor an alternative of one's own.

I don't know of any ideas that were 100% ready when they are initially offered, and as mine isn't, I don't expect yours should be either. I won't ask of you something I cannot myself produce. If you and I are gong to discuss the matter, then we need to be on equal ground and that means that you risk something and put a plan on the table. It's a rather one-sided conversation -- unless you are admitting that my approach has some viability -- if all that's happening is I present ideas and you throw stones at them. You need to risk criticism -- of your substantive solution ideas, not just your discussion tactics -- as well.

I think you've mentioned quite a few good points that are worth considering, considering in choosing how to act in executing a plan, but they aren't a plan. Considering those points is fine too, but doing so in the absence of a plan of action, any sort of action, that those points should inform, is "analysis paralysis" and leads nowhere. That's been my major complaint since my first post, even in the Palestine thread: the situation is improving for neither side and people are dying on both sides all the while. My take on that is that if folk must die, then better that they do so as an active combatant in a war that's being thoroughly prosecuted, not sitting in the wrong cafe at the wrong time.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 08-11-2014 at 02:35 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 02:57 PM   #237
Petros
Banned
56
Rep
1,382
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Quite a few of the points you raise I already addressed (or raised) in my 12 paragraph post. I won't repeat those.



I think, as I said, Hamas is the only party between the two that can be cut off as we're saying. I think it's well worth doing and I think the benefits would include what you describe as well as the direct, anti-combative ones I did.



I'm not suggesting anyone else go to war with Israel or Hamas. I'm suggesting that Israel and Hamas take the gloves off, have at it, one of them coming out the clear winner such that the other cannot rise against them again. If that means extermination of one or the other -- and I don't really care which one ceases to exist -- I'm okay with that.



Politically correct? I've never sought to be politically correct. I have sought to propose ideas that speak to finding a peaceful solution but that has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with my begrudging acceptance that that is the tack to which Israel and others committed years ago and I believe it's time to carry it to its conclusion whereupon something about it works or it doesn't. My approach may fail, but unlike many people, I'm not afraid of failing; I'm afraid of what happens if I don't try something that has a chance of succeeding. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, but I am certain that doing nothing and just talking about doing something will achieve nothing.

If failure be the outcome of the peaceful approach I suggested, or it just cannot be attempted, then so be it. That leaves war as the final option. I'm all for peaceful and diplomatic efforts, but I won't try that forever. Perhaps my patience with trying those alternatives is greater than some folks' and less than others, but when my patience is gone, I would be equally committed to winning a war and pursue doing so no less diligently. I am very definitely, in war matters, a "take no prisoners" sort of fellow. The only thing guaranteed about a war with me at the helm of one side is that one side won't survive.



First, I didn't suggest there's anything easy about it. It's physically difficult to do and it's morally difficult to find the will to do it. Nonetheless, it can be done, although not under the auspices of the the "limited war" crap that has been the theme of the past decade or more. Moreover, nobody has yet tried it with the vigor I propose. Make no mistake, the only way to end a war, IMO, is to win it so that there isn't anyone left who can or wants to fight that war for that purpose again.



I'm not gong to discuss Afghanistan or Iraq in this thread.

Applying that to Israel and the contested lands there, I have to assume you are suggesting that there are Palestinians who think that the Israelis are the "foreigners" of which you wrote above and that those folks aren't of a mind to be at war over the matter. To those individuals, and assuming war is the thing I've decided must be the course of action, I'd say they need to get out of the way or die where they stand. Once I'm done prosecuting the war, they can come back and if they are of a mind to pursue a diplomatic solution, I'll be willing to do that with them.

If they come back and keep fighting, I won't bother a second time bother to tell them to get out of the way; they will suffer the same fate as those who fought the first time. As with all things, one can be part of the problem or part of the solution and if I'm pushed to war as the solution, one won't have to wonder what one can expect.



The only reason they are here to be angrier is because we didn't punch hard enough.

As for the military solution only solving part of the problem, well, yes, that's true. Those political problems you mention, however, aren't all that hard to address when there are no people in the area being considered. I think you perceive that I mean less than what I'm saying. For me, if war is the solution, there won't be anyone left to govern or care for. My next concern would be burials and repopulating the area with people who are from elsewhere.

Israel, the geographic place on Earth, is small. It's not China, Russia, the US or even Alaska. It's small enough that the resistance inside Israel can be quite literally obliterated.



It is much easier for me to be the neutral arbiter. As such, it doesn't shock me that Israel isn't cottoning to folks like me, and perhaps even the ideas I've offered. What shocks me is that Israel hasn't taken the warlike route I've suggested.

I know if I were facing an enemy that declared the end of my existence as their purpose in life, the rest of the world be damned, I'd make them eat their words and deal with the consequences from the rest of the world afterwards. Unless the rest of the world is of a mind to bring my existence to an end, whatever be the consequence(s), it's better than having been exterminated or living daily with a real and nearby threat of that happening.



I don't think my plan is ideal, but it is a plan and it's more of one than I've seen elsewhere on this forum. I don't at all mind someone, you or others, throwing stones at my plan, but along with the stones, they/you need to propose something as an alternative, not just tell me what's wrong with my plan or call it incomplete. I don't think anyone here expects to find or would have a comprehensive plan to offer. This being a casual forum and a casual discussion in that forum, a fully fleshed out plan is likely well beyond any of our scopes.

I wasn't and am not asking that you have a "U.N.-ready" idea/plan, only that you have one, a non-joking alternative, to offer. If one is of a mind to tell others what won't work -- be it you here or the diplomats trying to solve the problem -- one must then also have an idea of something that would. Failing that, what constructive contribution does one add, be it to this discussion in the forum, or the real situation on the ground in Israel and in the halls of diplomacy?

You said it's easy for me to sit on the sidelines and play armchair diplomat, and yes, it easy to do that. What's even easier is to tell someone that their ideas won't work and concurrently offering nothing that's better, or at least different -- not a modification of their idea nor an alternative of one's own.

I don't know of any ideas that were 100% ready when they are initially offered, and as mine isn't, I don't expect yours should be either. I won't ask of you something I cannot myself produce. If you and I are gong to discuss the matter, then we need to be on equal ground and that means that you risk something and put a plan on the table. It's a rather one-sided conversation -- unless you are admitting that my approach has some viability -- if all that's happening is I present ideas and you throw stones at them. You need to risk criticism -- of your substantive solution ideas, not just your discussion tactics -- as well.

I think you've mentioned quite a few good points that are worth considering, considering in choosing how to act in executing a plan, but they aren't a plan. Considering those points is fine too, but doing so in the absence of a plan of action, any sort of action, that those points should inform, is "analysis paralysis" and leads nowhere. That's been my major complaint since my first post, even in the Palestine thread: the situation is improving for neither side and people are dying on both sides all the while. My take on that is that if folk must die, then better that they do so as an active combatant in a war that's being thoroughly prosecuted, not sitting in the wrong cafe at the wrong time.

All the best.
you seem to have genocidal tendencies
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 04:39 PM   #238
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
you seem to have genocidal tendencies
I knew someone would say that sooner or later. I don't. I'm just of the mind that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing to the best of one's ability. In war, that means winning effectively enough that there (1) there's no question about who won the battle, and (2) there will never be a meaningful reprisal from one's war enemy.

The genocidal aspect of my comments have more to do with parties involved in the dispute than with me. It's each of them that seems unwilling to accept less than a total and irreversible victory. With combatants of that nature, genocide is very likely inevitable as both are committed to their own ideals "to the last man." All I'm saying is that if I have to prosecute the war, and my opponent is of that "last man" mindset, then so be it, I would be willing to give them exactly what they asked for. I would be willing, provided I'm have the means, to annihilate them to the last man, woman, child, dog and cat.

In WWII, that was the mindset of the Japanese. Truman showed them he was willing and able to make sure every single Japanese died if they wanted to maintain that mindset and continue the war. The Japanese, when "to the last man" shifted from being a rallying phrase to a reality, had a change of heart, didn't they?

All the best.

Edit:
I understand the premise of a "limited war." The problem with that premise is that it's one's enemy, not oneself, that gets to define just how limited the war can be. That's a general problem with war of any sort. How far it goes is controlled by the enemy, that is if one enters the war with the intent to win it. I guess if one enters a war to just be at war, winning isn't necessary, but how far one must go is still in control by the enemy.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 06:30 PM   #239
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
I'm not gong to discuss Afghanistan or Iraq in this thread.

Applying that to Israel and the contested lands there, I have to assume you are suggesting that there are Palestinians who think that the Israelis are the "foreigners" of which you wrote above and that those folks aren't of a mind to be at war over the matter....
I assumed you were talking about the US, NATO, EU when you were talking about all-out war. I didn't realize you were talking about Israel and Palestine fighting by themselves. Well anyway, Iraq and Afghanistan were not brought up to change the subject, they have relevant examples of what worked and what didn't work in terms of counter-insurgency strategy..something I felt was relevant to the current conversation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
The only reason they are here to be angrier is because we didn't punch hard enough.
As I implied before, you obviously are not speaking from experience. But that's understandable..not everyone has fought in this era's conflicts. What I would suggest to you is that you should read about the French experience in Indochina and Algeria, the Russian experience in Afghanistan. Many people before your time have tried to "punch" harder but still did not find victory.

Short of nuclear war or completely wiping out the opposition (aka genocide)...the punch-harder technique that you speak of doesn't work.
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 07:21 PM   #240
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...Short of nuclear war or completely wiping out the opposition (aka genocide)...the punch-harder technique that you speak of doesn't work.
Short of? In war, AFAIAC, there is no such thing as "short of." I guess I was unclear: if war is the solution approach that's chosen, conducting it so that it and genocide are indistinguishable is okay by me. Someone said they think I have genocidal tendencies. I don't. If one is at war, one does what one must to win.

I also don't think that within the context of war there is such a thing as a crime, unless one happens to be the loser of the war. During the war's prosecution, there are no crimes committed by either side. Such are the spoils of war: the winner gets to write what appears in the history books, and the winner gets to decide what actions were or weren't criminal. That's the whole reason one declares war rather than just hauling off and killing people, which in the absence of war is criminal. If one's opponent forces one to annihilate him, what's criminal and what's not is a moot point as there'd be nobody to prosecute.

I wouldn't participate in a war with genocide as it's stated purpose; I think that would be very wrong to do. It's not lost on me that the outcome of a war could quite likely be indistinguishable from that of a willfully executed pogrom. Whether indeed the result actually is genocidal would depend on my opponent, that is the warring side that is about to lose. It'd be no different than what would have happened to the Japanese had they not chosen to surrender unconditionally. Had they not done so, U.S. would have nuclear bombed the whole nation. Their choice was surrender that day or be extinct in about two weeks, if that.

I think I said this before, but part of my solution, something I think should occur before Israel and Hamas formally declare war on each other, is for the rest of the world to just "butt the f*ck out." I think that left to their own devices, the two main parties would come to some sort of solution that both can live with and that is lasting.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 08:48 PM   #241
Dalko43
Captain
167
Rep
894
Posts

Drives: 2011 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Short of? In war, AFAIAC, there is no such thing as "short of." I guess I was unclear: if war is the solution approach that's chosen, conducting it so that it and genocide are indistinguishable is okay by me. Someone said they think I have genocidal tendencies. I don't. If one is at war, one does what one must to win.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You claim that you don't have genocidal tendencies but you are willing to do 'whatever it takes' (paraphrasing i know) to win a war....the two activities aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you completely wipe out your opposition (including killing off all non-combatants) in order to win a war, doesn't mean you aren't guilty of genocide.

Also there very much is such a thing as "short of" in war....proof yet again that you have never fought in one. In modern times its called the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva conventions and rules of engagement....even though modern military forces have the right to self defense in an armed conflict, they are obliged by internationally-sanctioned agreements to do everything in their power to avoid hurting non-combatants. I'm not saying everyone has always adhered to those agreements, but it's understood that they exist. Even in ancient times there was the concept of accepting a surrender, sparing the women and children, ect..again you can find many examples of violations of these standards, but there has always been some mutual understanding of the boundaries of war, whether they be implicit or explicit.

Killing is not a natural act for any normal human being, even one who is suffering the degradations of combat. Nor is it healthy for a society. That's why nations, states, clans, people have always sought a way to contain the violence of war. If they didn't there would be nothing left for the victor to claim as his own.

The Mongols, by all accounts, some of the most ruthless and bloody-minded conquerors of all time, still stopped "short of" killing absolutely everybody they came across and eventually integrated into the subjugated cultures...they were smart enough to realize they had to keep some of their enemies alive or else they would face a never-ending insurgency and/or would have nothing left to rule once the dust had settled.

Last edited by Dalko43; 08-11-2014 at 08:53 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-11-2014, 08:53 PM   #242
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
...the French experience in Indochina and Algeria, the Russian experience in Afghanistan. Many people before your time have tried to "punch" harder but still did not find victory....
I meant to say before and didn't...

In all those example, my answer is the same: they did not punch hard enough. I don't care how hard they did punch or tried to punch, or why they didn't punch harder. It wasn't hard enough. Period.

If it's the case that they could physically punch no harder, then it was incumbent upon them to withdraw, the loser or both sides depending on the situation. Once it's clear that one cannot win a war, one's duty to one's own people is to withdraw to at least save them from being slaughtered. If the other side lacks the means to slaughter them, they too must withdraw, for the sake of their own people.

If you've hit as hard as you can and it's not enough, there's no point in hitting more; that would be a waste of resources, physical, human and temporal. Like it or not, you have to go back to the table and agree a compromise or live forever in fear of "stupid sh*t" like bombs in random cafes and whatnot. Believe me, nobody wants that sort of foolishness in their life, not the bomber and not the bombed.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 AM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST