[ionia23]

Originally posted by Stealth
sup ionia. whats the deal

??

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23


Simple, they have two choices.

1. Take the high road.  Pull out of whatever spaces back to the '67 war (or whatever Palestine is upset about), hand over Jerusalem to the Palestinians, then start shipping them building and agricultural equipment so Palestine can rebuild.  Followup it up with sponsoring them to the UN to recognize Palestine as an independent nation and you're done.  Of course, they'll have to simply "deal" with the occasional coffe-shop suicide bombing with no retaliation whatsoever.

Oops, lest I forget.  The "right of return" will have to be extended.

2. Take the low road.  Line up all the tanks, bulldozers, and troops necessary to level the Palestinian territories.  Kill or expel all the persons there, civilian and otherwise, then annex the whole thing as the Nation of Israel.

It's one or the other.

So..... are you saying the US' could completely withdraw from Fallujah to easily solve this problem of violence, then?

Originally posted by Rictor
Well, that made...no sense at all.

And Woolie, I think you have it the wrong way around. These guys aren't YOUR foes, you're THEIR foes. Remeber, its their country, and they have more right to defend it than you have to invade it. Don't mistake right by force for right by justice.

What about when these people start turning on their own countrymen?  Y'know, when the militias start killing people who object to them?  And how is murdering & mutilating 4 foreigners justice, anyways?  I don't agree that the current response will work, but I wouldn;t condone mob violence either.

[Gank]

I think he means a complete withdrawal from Iraq Aldo

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank
I think he means a complete withdrawal from Iraq Aldo

ah, right.  The good old "we've ****ed up their country so lets wash our hands and run away" tactic that worked so badly with Afghanistan.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14


So..... are you saying the US' could completely withdraw from Fallujah to easily solve this problem of violence, then?

The US withdrawling from Fallujah wouldn't make a smidgen of difference right now as the same thing is happening in, what, 7 other cities right now?

Okay.  Say the US pulls out of Iraq completely right now.  Obviously, no more violence against the allied occupying forces as they wouldn't be there, with the exception of potshots and laughter as we "run home with our tail between our legs".  Somalia Pt. II.

Would it end violence in the region completely?  Unlikely.  Ask around and you'll find civil war is the general consensus which the US would be blamed for, of course.  We're to blame for ALL the problems in the Middle East it seems. That's the nice thing about blame, it zeroes out accountability.

Your guess is as good as mine how that would turn out.  Maybe the Iraqis would pull themselves together just fine.  Maybe they'd war themselves out of existence.  Who knows?

Either way, it wouldn't change anyone's opinions about my country.  We're too far down for that now.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23


The US withdrawling from Fallujah wouldn't make a smidgen of difference right now as the same thing is happening in, what, 7 other cities right now?

Okay.  Say the US pulls out of Iraq completely right now.  Obviously, no more violence against the allied occupying forces as they wouldn't be there, with the exception of potshots and laughter as we "run home with our tail between our legs".  Somalia Pt. II.

Would it end violence in the region completely?  Unlikely.  Ask around and you'll find civil war is the general consensus which the US would be blamed for, of course.  We're to blame for ALL the problems in the Middle East it seems. That's the nice thing about blame, it zeroes out accountability.

Your guess is as good as mine how that would turn out.  Maybe the Iraqis would pull themselves together just fine.  Maybe they'd war themselves out of existence.  Who knows?

Either way, it wouldn't change anyone's opinions about my country.  We're too far down for that now.

Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp?  as in minimal force.

(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).

[Rictor]

Lets look at the history of conflicts in the Middle -East

Gulf War 2 - US invades Iraq
Afghanistan - US invades Afghanistan
Gulf War 1 -  OK, admitedly Saddam invades Kuwait, but US also gets their hands bloody.
Iran-Iraq War- US supplies weapons and training to Saddam to fight Iran.
Israel - constant Israeli/Palestinian violence, caused by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Unconditional US support for Israel allows the conflict to continue.
Afghanistan  - Soviets invade, US arms and trains rebels to drive them back.
1967 War - Granted, Lebanon et al. mass armies on Israeli border, but it is Israel (with support from you-know-who) that takes the offensive and conquers land.

Now, tell me again who is the major cause of instability and war in the Middle East? Was it Syria who staged a coup in Iran in 1953. Was it Jordan who invaded Iraq, TWICE? Was it Turkey who armed rebel groups in Afghanistan, only to fight them 20 years later?

No, it was not.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp?  as in minimal force.

(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).

Contrary to popular opinion (including my own), I'm in the "never should have gone there in the first place" camp because it's a total waste of resources".

I knew damned well what the response would be. "Oh great Amerika, thank you so much for removing this dictator that you helped put in power in the first place and totally ****ing up our country along the way.  Speaking of which, would you please get the **** out of our country?" . More to the point, world reaction (and even some domestic-side) would be "Oh great Amerika, the great bully who fights people who can't fight back...blah blah blah". Somalia, Korea, Vietnam, oh my.

I don't get off on seeing American lives squandered like that.  I find it even more appalling that President **** seems to be under the impression it's "no big deal".  I expect better behavior from an elected official (and yes, I'm used to disappointment).

When America is talked about as being the Big Terrorist Bully on the planet, I want to smack people.  You can "accidentally" cruise-missle a neighborhood.  You can "accidentaly" shoot the wrong target ("You IDIOT!  The red "X", not the Red Cross!!!).  

You cannot "accidentaly" set off plastic explosives strapped to your body in a packed coffee-shop in Tel Aviv.

Unless it's a Starbucks, in which case good riddance to crap cof-ay.

Yeah, we've got the firepower to murder every insurgent (ha) in Iraq, no problem.  but that won't make any of us heroes in anyones eyes.  And I'm also sure that the situation in Fallujah doesn't reflect the state of the entire country.  But as the media's handling of the Columbine High School situation went, just goes to show you can't trust the media.

i don't know what the solution is.  If levelling the whole damned place will make the world safer for everyone, by all means light them up.  But if taking the high road will do it, then it's about time.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp?  as in minimal force.

(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).

Originally posted by ionia23

2. Take the low road.  Line up all the tanks, bulldozers, and troops necessary to level the Palestinian territories.  Kill or expel all the persons there, civilian and otherwise, then annex the whole thing as the Nation of Israel.

[Bobboau]

what, thats proportionate but not excessive...
what?

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]ionia23, you're being pretty bloody offensive on the whole with your remarks.

Ethnic cleansing seems to be a reasonably good solution to you, thank God the civilised world vehemently disagrees with your idea of justice. I'd keep your opinions to yourself.
[/color]

[Kazan]

maeglamor: i think you misunderstand what ionia is saying

seriousness != 100%

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I responded to this by request and on reading it any intended sarcasm is not apparent IMHO and obviously the opinion of others too.

I tend to stay out of these kinds of threads actually, I just see patterns of arguing in circles in general.
[/color]

[Kazan]

and often: no matter what america does other country yells at us for it - which is one of ionia's points

[edit] bad engrish

[ionia23]

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Those of you ripping me up as "bloody offensive" might do well to go read what I"m saying.  You'll hardly find it offensive.

That is, unless you're just plain dim.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]ionia23, you're being pretty bloody offensive on the whole with your remarks.

Ethnic cleansing seems to be a reasonably good solution to you, thank God the civilised world vehemently disagrees with your idea of justice. I'd keep your opinions to yourself.
[/color]

Well, seeing as you don't control my opinions or the voicing thereof [color=66ff00]Yes, I can[/color], much less take the time to read them for anything other than cannon fodder, you're out of luck.

For some people, ethnic cleansing IS a solution.  The Balkans, Cambodia, Sierra-Leone, you name it.  Does it work?  See history.  It's a pretty clear "No".

Like I said, it's a high road/low road situation, depends on what the players choose to do.  Do I think A. should exterminate B.?  Hell no.  Morals-schmorals, it wouldn't work.  An option?  Sure, anything's an option.  We could decide to bury Iraq in unsold copies of Atari's port of Pac-Man too.

Of course, New Mexico is still here so that obviously won't cut it.

Read my statements before you decide to dictate morality to me.  I'm not trying to win any popularity contests, just participating.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
and often: no matter what america does other country yells at us for it - which is one of ionia's points

[edit] bad engrish

thx for the back-up, btw.

[Kazan]

np

[Rictor]

I guess I'm dim then.

You laid out two cases. One was a reasonable, just solution. The second was, well, genocide.

Perhaps you have accomplished new depths of subtelty when it comes to sarcasm, but my oh so dim intelligence didn't detect any. This is the second time in a few days that you suggested be just round up the civies and shoot 'em down. So far as I can recall, only you and Liberator ever came to spew such fanatical BS, and he only did it once. Everyone else has the good sense to refrain from wishing death upon millions of innocents. I thought that the world left those sentiments behind after WW2, when we saw what suffering collective punishement brings.

You didn't see me (or anyone else) posting on here after 9/11 to say "Those guys sooo deserved it, too bad it was only 3000". Even if I thought that (I don't), I would spare you the bother of having to listen to me piss myself with glee at the deaths of innocents.

The Rest of the World (read: everyone less America) has seen untold suffering done to its people throughout history, and especially in the past 100 years. War devasted Europe twice this century, on a scale you can not even begin to imagine. Countless innocents died at the hands of people who's beliefs sounds frightenighly similar to yours.

Millions have died from war, from hunger (thank you sanctions), from oppression by tyrannical regimes (but they're "our" dictators) and from every kind of terrorism. And yet, you seem to think that the murder of hundreds of thousand of innocents is indeed an appropriate response to the killing of four armed mercenaries.

You do this, because you have never seen a trace of war in your life. Never have you seen what these actions which you advocate look like, when they're happening to YOU. To YOUR family, to YOUR nations, to YOUR world. I'm going to make a very broad generalization, and say that this is the "problem" with Americans. You have never seen the other end of the big stick which you swing around with such impunity. Yes, your soldiers die, but not your wives, your mothers and fathers. Not you innocents. If you ever saw a hint of this, you would very quickly come to be humbled. You would sto war, stop your emperial adventures.

If you're still wondering, I raised the alarm. Its the first time I ever did it on this board, in 2+ years of my time here, which should tell you a little something about your behaviour.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
You didn't see me (or anyone else) posting on here after 9/11 to say "Those guys sooo deserved it, too bad it was only 3000".

there were people saying this

PS: Ionia was simply presenting the possible responses - not endorsing one of them dimwit.


Quite frankly there is NO CORRECT SOLUTION to any situation - everyone's going to have a problem.


No you Rictor are getting on my nerves - you keep accusing us of being  Imperialists  (calling us empricalist is a compliment... go look up your definitions retard) -- You sound absolutely bitter.  We may be economically imperialist to an extend - but not militarily.  The cold war is not an example of imperialism just so you know - you seem not to even understand the words you're throwing around.



You know what Rictor - you know what would happen to america if we brought all our troops back into or own borders, etc -- PEOPLE WOULD ***** AT US

No matter what we do it's wrong - and you're one of the prime examples of that.   You're just ****ing *****ing.

WHAT THE HELL COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN - so i can try and make sense of your messed up mind