Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's all liberal bias because I disagree with it!

Just as a Clarification Shuma, the Palestinians were as responsible for the destruction of the two state solution as the Israeli's. Foreign powers actually are probably more responsible for getting this mess started than anything. It might have been resolved a long time ago if we'd simply let the two sides fight it out but instead everyone got involved and started backing one or the other with the state with Western backing being the obvious winner. Palestinians actually might be doing a lot better if they weren't being left out there to hang by the political interests of neighboring Arab states.

Second, the two state solution probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Look at that 1947 division. You have one country split in half by another and are trying to divide land between two groups of people that have lost the ability to negotiate with one another amicably. This conflict was going to happen two state solution or not. Hanging that on solely the Israeli's is unfair and unrealistic.

But... having both sides share some of the blame makes it hard to know who the "bad guys" are.

Monster Rain wrote:But... having both sides share some of the blame makes it hard to know who the "bad guys" are.

Hmm your right...

Lets blame Bush. He's the next best choice. Or Obama. Or Bush. One of them.

LordofHats wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:But... having both sides share some of the blame makes it hard to know who the "bad guys" are.

Hmm your right...

Lets blame Bush. He's the next best choice. Or Obama. Or Bush. One of them.

The answer is simple:

What I find funny. If GW lied about everything when we went to war in Iraq wouldn't the process to be impeach started? Are there any documents that proved GW lied about going to war? Did he not show congress all evidence and documentation and majority of congress voted for war? Did not Saddam support extremist by providing 10K for suicide bomber families? Granted the smoking gun of WMD's were not found in Iraq....its a damn big desert we did manage to knock out a logistical column for terrorist support. I will admit and it hit the news a couple times that some IED's were 155mm artillery shells that were two chambers. A two chamber artillery shell is used for delivery of whatever chemical agent that can be filled in the chamber dispersal.

LordofHats wrote:Just as a Clarification Shuma, the Palestinians were as responsible for the destruction of the two state solution as the Israeli's. Foreign powers actually are probably more responsible for getting this mess started than anything. It might have been resolved a long time ago if we'd simply let the two sides fight it out but instead everyone got involved and started backing one or the other with the state with Western backing being the obvious winner. Palestinians actually might be doing a lot better if they weren't being left out there to hang by the political interests of neighboring Arab states.

Second, the two state solution probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Look at that 1947 division. You have one country split in half by another and are trying to divide land between two groups of people that have lost the ability to negotiate with one another amicably. This conflict was going to happen two state solution or not. Hanging that on solely the Israeli's is unfair and unrealistic.

No. That's a copout. Israel refuses to negotiate under their original borders, they refuse to stop bulldozing and settling in palestine as a precondition for talks (which is illegal by the UN), they refuse to let the wall be a topic of discussion in any but the most extreme cases (like when it goes through the middle of a palestinian town), and they refuse to let them have fething chocolate (also illegal by the UN). If American didn't have such a hardon for our tiny western ally in the mideast they would sound like cartoon supervillains.

Their territory is expanding daily into palestine and they are forcefully removing people and shooting them while they do it. In 2008 they killed over 100 Palestinian children. If that happened here we would turn their country into a hellhole worse then Iraq, and yet we're supposed to feel sorry for them? They are both bad guys, but that's like putting a mugger next to a serial rapist hedge fund operator. If you look at any of the facts with even the most barely Independant perspective the Palestinians smell like roses compared to Israel.

It's a uniquely American and uniquely ignorant perspective to think that the Israelis are the defenders here. It's uniquely lazy to throw up your hands and say "whelp, everyones wrong so who cares".

ShumaGorath wrote:No. That's a copout. Israel refuses to negotiate under their original borders, they refuse to stop bulldozing and settling in palestine as a precondition for talks (which is illegal by the UN), they refuse to let the wall be a topic of discussion in any but the most extreme cases (like when it goes through the middle of a palestinian town), and they refuse to let them have fething chocolate (also illegal by the UN). Their territory is expanding daily into palestine and they are forcefully removing people and shooting them while they do it. They are both bad guys, but that's like putting a mugger next to a serial rapist hedge fund operator. If you look at any of the facts with even the most barely Independant perspective the Palestinians smell like roses compared to Israel.

Its almost as if a situation can't deteriorate over 70 years into an absolute cluster I wasn't even talking about the current situation so much as what created it. The Palestinians have as much a role in creating their situation as Israel has. The difference is that Israel has come out on top and still seems to want to beat their opponent into the dust despite the fact their opponent is already six feet under.

It's a uniquely American and uniquely ignorant perspective to think that the Israelis are the defenders here.

I'd actually argue their both the aggressors/defenders. Difference is the Israeli's have had the upper hand since the Independence War and the Palestinians have been hung out to dry by anyone with the ability to actually help them including some of the states that put them in the current situation (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt).

It's uniquely lazy to throw up your hands and say "whelp, everyones wrong so who cares".

Well... I don't care but more because I can't see any realistic way for the conflict to end than because everyone is wrong. Israel is unwilling to budge on anything at this point and the Palestinians are ham strung by internal conflict and outside influences. Palestinians definitely have the short end of the deal but I think painting the Israelis as the root of all evil here is ignoring the role Palestinians played in creating/worsening their own situation and the role other Arab states have had in helping them do it. EDIT: The US and western powers aren't blameless either.

If the US stopped giving so much money to Israel and removed their backing, the conflict would end I suspect. It would be spectacularly bloody though.

Da Boss wrote:AustonT, I wonder how you would respond if America was occupied by a technologically superior force which constantly expanded it's territories by bulldozing the living areas of you and your neighbours. Likelihood is you'd be pretty pissed off.

I'd probably fight until I was dead, and inculcate my children to do the same. Which might even have relevance if the Israelis just showed up, "technologically superior" and started bulldozing houses. Israel made itself a nation, garnered support from reliable allies and fought for it's life more than once, and established the most powerful military and economic powerhouse in the region. The Palestinians oversaw a slide into mediocrity and disenfranchisement over their support of external invaders.

I doubt I will ever convince you or change your mind.

Too true, and I doubt I'll change yours.

LordofHats wrote:

AustonT wrote:I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.

They're not the minority if you consider the whole of the Palestine region. Israel is not the only strip of land that is part of the conflict. Overall there are more Muslim Arabs in it than Jews. The Jews are an even smaller minority if you account for all the refugees no longer in the area. But the populations are clearly divided into different parts of the region, the Jews in the nation state of Israel, and the Muslim Arabs in the surrounding areas.

You can expand the focus however far out you want. IN Israel, which is what I said; Muslims are in the minority. Israel is the only strip of land in conflict because the Palestinians aren't demanding land from the surrounding countries, nor have they declared another countless capital as their own.

I'm sure a fair portion of Palestenians would prefer to be unrestricted citizens of Israel than impoverished members of the Occupied Palestenian Territories,

You might want to clarify that. The Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, hardly unrestricted. Israel is actually quite invested in keeping non-Jews out and disenfranchised, as you can't have a Jewish state where a significant portion of the population is non-Jewish. It's one of the key reasons Palestinians have been denied the right of return.

I did clarify it: unrestricted citizen of Israel. As I understand it those living in the OPT are franchised by the PNA and are not Israeli Citizens. There is also a significant portion of Israeli Arabs, Christians, and "others" who have full Israeli citizenship and do not suffer from the same issue Palestinians do; as they are entitled to government housing, healthcare, and social security just like every other Israeli. Gaining citizenship has been the same since the law of return, it's not hard or even discouraged to become an Israeli citizen, it's just not common.
Like I said I'm sure there's a large number of Palestinians who would rather be unrestricted Israelis than retain the title "Palestinian"


I'm not against compromise, or fair treatment for Muslims living in Israel. I'm against agitators who call themselves Palestinians attempting to subvert a legitimate nation, and unmoved by how supporting nations that attempted to militarily destroy that nation and attempt a religious genocide landed them in squalor.

Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?

Da Boss wrote:If the US stopped giving so much money to Israel and removed their backing, the conflict would end I suspect. It would be spectacularly bloody though.

I suspect that opportunity has passed. Israel has entrenched itself in its course of action at this point. Also, we don't give them as much money these days as many people seem to think we do. Israel can stand alone now unlike in the first forty or so years of the state. They don't need our help to survive like they used to, so we don't have as much control as some people think. However I do think that the US can use its leverage to force Israel to be less heavy handed than they are. Trade embargoes against Israel would also be a lot more effective than those against other states but that's an extreme I don't think we're likely to resort to.

Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?

Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them. Considering the genocidal rhetoric thrown at them they are being calm and patient. The day Israel forcibly removes all Palestinians, I'll feel bad for them. I'll also expect Jordan or Egypt to quietly cede either the East bank of the Jordan or Nile to create the Palestinian state.

AustonT wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?

Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them.

So, I guess you could call that a "final solution to the Palestinian question", huh?

They are putting Palestinians into modern age walled ghettos. Is it really that far of a jump? Expulsion seems far more likely, and palpable.

AustonT wrote:They are putting Palestinians into modern age walled ghettos. Is it really that far of a jump? Expulsion seems far more likely, and palpable.

Maybe after that the Palestinians can flee across the red sea? Part some waters?

I'm the last person to want to stop debate, but can we please draw a line under this discussion of the israel/palestine conflict. I think enough column inches and words have been wasted over the years. They were fighting before we were born, and sadly, they'll probably be still at it when I'm six foot under.
There's nothing nobody on this site can do about it, so let's get back to geeky discussions of star wars and usefull pastimes like annoying frazz!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm the last person to want to stop debate, but can we please draw a line under this discussion of the israel/palestine conflict. I think enough column inches and words have been wasted over the years. They were fighting before we were born, and sadly, they'll probably be still at it when I'm six foot under.
There's nothing nobody on this site can do about it, so let's get back to geeky discussions of star wars and usefull pastimes like annoying frazz!

I don't think you read the topic of this thread.

I thought the war in Iraq was won by late April 2003.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/politics/sprj.irq.bush.speech_1_tactics-and-precision-weapons-qaeda-terrorist-network?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

For balance...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85777,00.html

Everything since then was merely tidying up some loose ends.

Bwahahahaha. Oh Dubya.

Fair point Shuma, but I don't mean to be a pedant, but when did the Iraq conflict become a war. War suggests a begining and an end with clearly defined strategic goals.

But I'll make the same point again: enough time has been wasted discussing the problems of the middle east.

AustonT wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Did you look at any of Shuma's stats?

Yes.
I've been aware of the disparity between Israeli and Palestinians deaths for quite some time. I consider Israel's response restrained. They could solve the entire problem by forcibly removing them, or killing them all the way Yassar Arafat wanted to do to them. Considering the genocidal rhetoric thrown at them they are being calm and patient. The day Israel forcibly removes all Palestinians, I'll feel bad for them. I'll also expect Jordan or Egypt to quietly cede either the East bank of the Jordan or Nile to create the Palestinian state.

Wait, a 100 to 1 kill/death ratio is "restrained"?

If you have to occupy a country for the rest of eternity, then you never won the war to begin with...

Phanatik wrote:

Former president Bill Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man" in a December 2010 press conference.[15] Krauthammer responded, tongue-in-cheek, that "my career is done" and "I'm toast".[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

And here we have a prime example of why we read the source material.

Asked whether Americans want to see the president compromise with Republicans, and whether that is the message Obama needs to drive home to his fellow Democrats, Clinton turned the question back on itself. "Yes, but I also believe that it's a message Republicans are going to have to accept. Keep in mind, to me, the really interesting thing was . . . that a lot of the hard-core conservatives think the Republicans gave too much."

For evidence, he cited Friday's column in The Post by Charles Krauthammer, who has regularly excoriated Obama but who wrote that the president got far more out of the deal than Republicans did. Clinton called Krauthammer "a brilliant man."

AustonT wrote: I am unsympathetic to the plight of the Muslim minority of Israel demanding independence and then orchestrating a decades long campaign of terror against them.

The Muslim minority isn't demanding independence from Israel, they're quite comfortable with their status as Israeli citizens.

LordofHats wrote:
You might want to clarify that. The Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, hardly unrestricted. Israel is actually quite invested in keeping non-Jews out and disenfranchised, as you can't have a Jewish state where a significant portion of the population is non-Jewish. It's one of the key reasons Palestinians have been denied the right of return.

This is also the reason that Israel considers neither the West Bank, nor Gaza part of its territory. Though, strangely, I see a lot of American policy hawks try to force it on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote: The difference is that Israel has come out on top and still seems to want to beat their opponent into the dust despite the fact their opponent is already six feet under.

Well, ultimately, Israel wants the West Bank and Gaza (hell, it already treats the West Bank like Israeli territory, even if it won't lay claim), but it doesn't want the people living there. Were its allies not, for the most part, liberal democracies it could probably get away with removal or genocide. But, liberal democracies tend to frown on that sort of thing, its not likely to happen.

Democrats lose another won war.

More reasons this is a false premise, really incredibly false that somehow Democrats lose wars and Republicans win wars.

First, the biggest most horrible, destructive conflict in history was WWII. Both FDR and Harry Truman were Democrats and I'm fairly certain the USA can call that one a win. A win under Democrats.

Second, Vietnam War ended during Republican President Nixon's tenure. How'd that work out for everyone? Oh yeah, not even close to a win. Some might call that a loss, a Republican lost that war. Then disgraced and resigned for other reasons.

Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die. Republicans are good at starting wars, not so good at ending them and certainly not winning them. Especially when they are poorly planned and started on false pretenses.

So when is the highly dubious title of this thread going to be changed to something more appropriate? I'm sure never, facts don't matter to some, only failed ideologies.

Going back to the original post for a moment.

I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.

Iraq is no more Obamas' failure than the worse-to-come Iraq will be the failure of whoever succeeds him into the White House. Iraq can be blamed on Bush and his cronies, including Blair, but not Obama; frankly there is little he can do now. Obama however will deserve the same scorn if/when he orders an attack on Iran.

Orlanth wrote:
I am no fan of Obama and am more than happy to see blame laid at his door. Yet discredit where discredit is due and I really cannot blame him or his government for why the situation Iraq has apparently gone South during his presidential term. Iraq has not existed as a stable nation since the 'Coalition of the Willing' booted Saddam out of office. It just took a while for the quagmire to churn up to full depth, and probably hasn't yet got there.

I'm not sure why the absence of a SOFA equates to an unstable Iraq. Iraq could be a staunch Iranian ally and still be perfectly stable.

Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die.

Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd

5-7 years conclusion. If we are fighting another country that wore a uniform throughout the conflict thats no problem. When your dealing with insurgents its going to drag out.

Obama started conflicted Libya and Uganda. We're doing reaper strikes in Yemen.

WWII was supported by the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan was supported by the nation at first but the duration of the conflict lessen the support for both conflicts we have going on.

its 0100 so I think my grammer good....

Jihadin wrote:

Third, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In 5 years and 7 years respectively he was not able to successfully bring either to a conclusion of any kind. That's what happens when draft dodgers are allowed to send other people off to die.

Hmmm if I remember correctly GW was a fighter pilot in the Air National Gaurd

5-7 years conclusion. If we are fighting another country that wore a uniform throughout the conflict thats no problem. When your dealing with insurgents its going to drag out.

Obama started conflicted Libya and Uganda. We're doing reaper strikes in Yemen.

WWII was supported by the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan was supported by the nation at first but the duration of the conflict lessen the support for both conflicts we have going on.

its 0100 so I think my grammer good....

Would you not agree that GW dropped the ball by going into Iraq, instead of finishing the Afghanistan war first?
How/why they ever thought they could do 2 wars, let alone one, is beyond me. Just imagine if we'd
devoted all the resources that were spent in Iraq in Afghanistan? Probably wouldn't be at an END, but that
situation couldn't be any worse.

Now lets talk dollars. How deep did W dig us in just the Iraq war? apparently starting and continuing wars he had no way
to pay for is a-Okay with the Right. but, we really can't afford National health care.

And look how the Vets were being treated when they came home.
"No PTSD for you, you're an Alcoholic!" Heaven forbid that the PTSD caused the drinking in the first fething place....
It's always amazed me how the Heros that wear the flag are held up and saluted so proudly by
the Right, until it comes time to take care of them. Just ask Billbo Oreally how many Homeless Vets there are. according to
him, it's a myth. Not true at all. He's also the genius that said the US committed War crimes in WW2 at Malmedy. We were
actually the victims. you have to admire how facts don't get in the way for him!

This is why I hate liberalism in general.