Bush: The War Stopper!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
America needs to cut all funds off to Israel.
We needed to do more than that.

We need to cut off diplomatic support to Israel, as it is our veto power in the UN which has blocked all the Security Council resolution which could have ended this madness long ago.

That is how the world brought South African apartheid to an end, and we can do much the same to bring Israeli's ongoing denial of Palestine's right to exist to an end.

The US is only asking for fairness. Like with the current ceasefire, the first one drawing up mentioned nothing in regards to Hamas, everyone loved it except France, Great B and the US. Does that mean they block everything against Israel? No, it means they wanted the people who started this shit condoned for once.

Finally we have a cease fire resolution that calls on Hamas as well to stop hostilities, specifically mentions Hamas. What happens now? Hamas states it will never listen to such a resolution.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: RichardE
Palestine and Hamas are the ones denying Israels right to exist.

Israel exists as an independent and quite powerful state, regardless of who denies it's legitimate right to do so.

Palestine only exists as Israeli occupied territory, as Israel continues to deny Palestine's legitimate right to exist, and has done so long before Hamas or even the PLO.

 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had declared war against Germany in 1939 when they invaded Poland and started sending troops etc to Europe WW2 would have been FAR shorter than it was and we could have saved millions of lives.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Do you know anything about the US army at this time period? Non-existant, we didn't even have a decent tank while the Germans had Pz3s and Pz4s. Secondly, we were still struggling with a mighty depression and we didn't have the infrastructure in place to pump out tanks at a huge rate. If anything, the US involvement early would have solidified Hitler's reign.

Think about it for a second, Hitler crushed France in less than 6 months, and France was a much stronger army than the US was at that time. Then, the Wehrmacht crushed all the Allied resistance in Europe at the Battle of Dunkirk; over 300,000 men had to be evacuated. Hitler chose not to sink the ships as well, because the OKC thought the battle was so decisive that Britain had no choice but to surrender.

Now imagine if America was also in the war and suffered a catastrophic defeat like that. Combined with Japan's aggression, the Allies would have been in an extremely difficult position. It was a fortuitous event that the Pearl Harbor attack happened when it did. We recovered from the depression and we had factories in place to pump out tanks by the thousands. And even this didn't help as much as you probably think. The Western Allies (eg Britain, USA, France, and all the other countries) faced only 20-25% of the Wehrmacht in the Western Front. There were maybe 500 Panthers and 50 Tigers operating in the West, yet these small numbers of tanks took out over 8,000 Allied tanks on the Western Front.

Remember that the Russians had a longer distance to travel in 1944 to Berlin, faced more of the German Army and still beat the Allies to Berlin. If we faced the same numbers of troops that the Russians did, we would have stuck in France forever.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Palestine and Hamas are the ones denying Israels right to exist.

Israel exists as an independent and quite powerful state, regardless of who denies it.

Palestine only exists as Israeli occupied territory, as Israel continues to deny Palestine's right to exist and has done so long before Hamas or even the PLO.

Which is ignoring the entire reason I posted what I did. Congratulations you should work as a spin master.

Hamas only exists because of there continued refusal to recognize Israels right to exist sharing this belief with many Arab countries.

Again, as I stated, Israel has offered a two state solution in the past, which means Israel recognizes and attempts to establish a Palestinian state. (Which contradicts your idea what Israel denies this right.) With deals that specifically offer the return of all occupied territories. The Palestinians reject these deals due to there belief that Israel does not have a right to exist.

So since you ignored the entire point and went off on your own little tangent I posted it a little more in depth for you to help you out a bit.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: RichardE

You just said..
I misquoted ProfJohn, that was him who said "The UN didn't end anything."

I edited my post to fix that just now.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
America needs to cut all funds off to Israel.

We need to cut out ALL aid to EVERY country.
Don't they teach history in our schools??

We tried the isolationist approach in the 1930s and 40s and the result was a war that lasted far longer and cost far more lives than if we had gotten involved at the start.

If we had declared war against Germany in 1939 when they invaded Poland and started sending troops etc to Europe WW2 would have been FAR shorter than it was and we could have saved millions of lives.


Do you really think the Islamists that control Hamas will stop at Israel?

WTF? So cutting off all foreign aid equals an isolationist foreign policy? :roll:
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: RichardE
Which is ignoring the entire reason I posted what I did. Congratulations you should work as a spin master.

...

Again, as I stated, Israel has offered a two state solution in the past, which means Israel recognizes and attempts to establish a Palestinian state. (Which contradicts your idea what Israel denies this right.)

You are ignoring the facts and diluting yourself with spin.

Again, the best Israel has offered is for Palestinians to agree to a permanent state of subjugation, as shown explained here:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
...South African apartheid, as I previously stated. I recommend looking into the details of that if you are not familiar with them.
The UN didn't end anything.

Please see here.
I'm sorry.... find the me link that says

"UN declares apartheid over, people of South Africa rejoice"

Again, the UN did nothing, the people of South Africa ended apartheid on their own.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
...Israel had started colonizing the West Bank in their ongoing denial of Palestine's right to exist.

Okay, I'll bite.

What is the minimum that Israel would have to do today to get the violence to stop in a meaningful way?

What I said right in that quote above is the gist of what needs to be done to stop driving people to the insanity of attacking Israel.

Granted, the details are complicated, but see here for further explanation of what must be done, introduced with how Israel has been doing exactly the opposite:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had declared war against Germany in 1939 when they invaded Poland and started sending troops etc to Europe WW2 would have been FAR shorter than it was and we could have saved millions of lives.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Do you know anything about the US army at this time period? Non-existant, we didn't even have a decent tank while the Germans had Pz3s and Pz4s. Secondly, we were still struggling with a mighty depression and we didn't have the infrastructure in place to pump out tanks at a huge rate. If anything, the US involvement early would have solidified Hitler's reign.

Think about it for a second, Hitler crushed France in less than 6 months, and France was a much stronger army than the US was at that time. Then, the Wehrmacht crushed all the Allied resistance in Europe at the Battle of Dunkirk; over 300,000 men had to be evacuated. Hitler chose not to sink the ships as well, because the OKC thought the battle was so decisive that Britain had no choice but to surrender.

Now imagine if America was also in the war and suffered a catastrophic defeat like that. Combined with Japan's aggression, the Allies would have been in an extremely difficult position. It was a fortuitous event that the Pearl Harbor attack happened when it did. We recovered from the depression and we had factories in place to pump out tanks by the thousands. And even this didn't help as much as you probably think. The Western Allies (eg Britain, USA, France, and all the other countries) faced only 20-25% of the Wehrmacht in the Western Front. There were maybe 500 Panthers and 50 Tigers operating in the West, yet these small numbers of tanks took out over 8,000 Allied tanks on the Western Front.

Remember that the Russians had a longer distance to travel in 1944 to Berlin, faced more of the German Army and still beat the Allies to Berlin. If we faced the same numbers of troops that the Russians did, we would have stuck in France forever.
We did not recover from the depression until we started our military build up.

If we had started that build up in 1940 instead of 1942 it would have made a hell of a difference in the outcome and length of the war.

But enough of this... back on topic.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Again, the UN did nothing, the people of South Africa ended apartheid on their own.

The UN did much:

At the first UN gathering in 1946, South Africa was placed on the agenda. The primary subject in question was the handling of South African Indians, a great cause of divergence between South Africa and India. In 1952, apartheid was again discussed in the aftermath of the Defiance Campaign, and the UN set up a task team to keep watch on the progress of apartheid and the racial state of affairs in South Africa. Although South Africa's racial policies were a cause for concern, most countries in the UN concurred that this was a domestic affair, which fell outside the UN's jurisdiction.

In April 1960, the UN's conservative stance on apartheid changed following the Sharpeville massacre, and the Security Council for the first time agreed on concerted action against the apartheid regime, demanding an end to racial separation and discrimination. From 1960 the ANC began a campaign of armed struggle of which there would later be a charge of 193 acts of terrorism from 1961-1963, mainly bombings and murders of civilians.

Instead, the South African government then began further suppression, banning the ANC and PAC. In 1961, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld stopped over in South Africa and subsequently stated that he had been unable to reach agreement with Prime Minister Verwoerd.

On 6 November 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. In 1966, the UN held the first[which?] of many colloquiums on apartheid. The General Assembly announced 21 March as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in memory of the Sharpeville massacre.[citation needed] In 1971, the General Assembly formally denounced the institution of homelands, and a motion[which?] was passed in 1974 to expel South Africa from the UN, but this was vetoed by France, Britain and the United States of America, all key trade associates of South Africa.[citation needed]

On 7 August 1963 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 181 calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, and in the same year, a Special Committee Against Apartheid was established to encourage and oversee plans of action against the regime. From 1964, the US and Britain discontinued their arms trade with South Africa. Yet even traditional enemies of the US were united against apartheid; Che Guevara (a Marxist revolutionary who was labelled a terrorist by the US despite being part of the Cuban government) condemned the "brutal policy of apartheid" to the 19th General Assembly of the United Nations and asked "Can the United Nations do nothing to stop this?". In 1977, the voluntary UN arms embargo became mandatory with the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 418.

Economic sanctions against South Africa were also frequently debated as an effective way of putting pressure on the apartheid government. In 1962, the UN General Assembly requested that its members sever political, fiscal and transportation ties with South Africa. In 1968, it proposed ending all cultural, educational and sporting connections as well. Economic sanctions, however, were not made mandatory, because of opposition from South Africa's main trading partners.

In 1978 and 1983 the United Nations condemned South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism, and a significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to disinvest from South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa.

After much debate, by the late 1980s the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.[26] A divestment movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#United_Nations

The UN would gladly lead the same movment to stop Israel's ongoing denial of Palestine's right to exist, if only we could stop using our veto power to prevent them.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
I think the whole thing illustrates that practicality can intrude upon the most thick-headed ideological irrationality, at least sometimes.

It's been obvious all along that the Israelis can't attack Iran w/o American complicity, and it's never been in our interests to engage in such an effort, despite the ravings of Dick Cheney and the neocons who have divided American/ Israeli loyalty. The consequences to such action are utterly incalculable, making it a fool's move on that basis alone.

Cooler heads prevailed, and that's a good thing.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Snowman you are an idiot!!!!!

The UN did not go into South Africa and declare apartheid over!!!!!

BTW the first UN resolution against apartheid was passed in 1962! Apartheid did not end until 30 years later, obviously the UN has lots and lots of power huh?

I am sure the UN can pass one resolution that declared the fighting in Gaza over and all the world will rejoice when peace breaks out. Then maybe the UN can declare and end to hunger and poverty as well.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The UN did not go into South Africa and declare apartheid over!!!!!

I never suggested anything so simple as that.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW the first UN resolution against apartheid was passed in 1962!

1948 was when the first resolution against Israel's ongoing denial of Palestine's right to exist was passed.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Apartheid did not end until 30 years later, obviously the UN has lots and lots of power huh?
This is what the power of the UN achived:

After much debate, by the late 1980s the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.[26] A divestment movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#United_Nations

Those trade sanctions and divestment movements, estblished though the efforts of the UN, brought South Africa to end apartheid.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,024
5,085
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had declared war against Germany in 1939 when they invaded Poland and started sending troops etc to Europe WW2 would have been FAR shorter than it was and we could have saved millions of lives.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Do you know anything about the US army at this time period? Non-existant, we didn't even have a decent tank while the Germans had Pz3s and Pz4s. Secondly, we were still struggling with a mighty depression and we didn't have the infrastructure in place to pump out tanks at a huge rate. If anything, the US involvement early would have solidified Hitler's reign.

Think about it for a second, Hitler crushed France in less than 6 months, and France was a much stronger army than the US was at that time. Then, the Wehrmacht crushed all the Allied resistance in Europe at the Battle of Dunkirk; over 300,000 men had to be evacuated. Hitler chose not to sink the ships as well, because the OKC thought the battle was so decisive that Britain had no choice but to surrender.

Now imagine if America was also in the war and suffered a catastrophic defeat like that. Combined with Japan's aggression, the Allies would have been in an extremely difficult position. It was a fortuitous event that the Pearl Harbor attack happened when it did. We recovered from the depression and we had factories in place to pump out tanks by the thousands. And even this didn't help as much as you probably think. The Western Allies (eg Britain, USA, France, and all the other countries) faced only 20-25% of the Wehrmacht in the Western Front. There were maybe 500 Panthers and 50 Tigers operating in the West, yet these small numbers of tanks took out over 8,000 Allied tanks on the Western Front.

Remember that the Russians had a longer distance to travel in 1944 to Berlin, faced more of the German Army and still beat the Allies to Berlin. If we faced the same numbers of troops that the Russians did, we would have stuck in France forever.
We did not recover from the depression until we started our military build up.

If we had started that build up in 1940 instead of 1942 it would have made a hell of a difference in the outcome and length of the war.

But enough of this... back on topic.


We did. Do you know nothing of History?

You just got done saying we should have gone to war in 1939.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Snowman you are an idiot!!!!!

The UN did not go into South Africa and declare apartheid over!!!!!

BTW the first UN resolution against apartheid was passed in 1962! Apartheid did not end until 30 years later, obviously the UN has lots and lots of power huh?

I am sure the UN can pass one resolution that declared the fighting in Gaza over and all the world will rejoice when peace breaks out. Then maybe the UN can declare and end to hunger and poverty as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, non Prof John is shortsighted, what has enabled Israel and prevented Israel from being an relativistic peace partner has been US massive support since the 1967 war. And while nearly every other country on the planet realizes that this Israeli strategy is unjust, unsustainable, and short sighted, with the US now slowly coming around also, PJ expects one UN resolution to turn everything around immediately.

The point being attitudes change slowly, and often being on the wrong side of the world and UN consensus takes a long time to beat fruit. But it often beats a bloody all out war. When Israel realizes that it must provide justice to the Palestinian people to survive, it will happen, but the process will take time.

The US is sending the message to Israel that it can be as unjust as humanly possible and that the US will continue to support that.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: feralkid
We did. Do you know nothing of History?

You just got done saying we should have gone to war in 1939.
Look at US military production prior to and during WW 2.

It is very clear that we did not really ramp up war production until 1942.

Now if we had started to ramp up war production in 1939 instead it would have made a huge impact on the outcome of the war.

In 1941 we produced 1400 medium tanks, in 1942 we produced 15,000.

Back on topic... my point is that we can't close our eyes to what happens in the world. The goal of Hamas, as stated by them, is not just the reestablishment of Palestine, but the elimination of Israel.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,024
5,085
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: feralkid
We did. Do you know nothing of History?

You just got done saying we should have gone to war in 1939.
Look at US military production prior to and during WW 2.

It is very clear that we did not really ramp up war production until 1942.


So what were you jabbering on about when you posted this?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we had declared war against Germany in 1939 when they invaded Poland and started sending troops etc to Europe WW2 would have been FAR shorter than it was and we could have saved millions of lives.


 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Snowman you are an idiot!!!!!

The UN did not go into South Africa and declare apartheid over!!!!!

BTW the first UN resolution against apartheid was passed in 1962! Apartheid did not end until 30 years later, obviously the UN has lots and lots of power huh?

I am sure the UN can pass one resolution that declared the fighting in Gaza over and all the world will rejoice when peace breaks out. Then maybe the UN can declare and end to hunger and poverty as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, non Prof John is shortsighted, what has enabled Israel and prevented Israel from being an relativistic peace partner has been US massive support since the 1967 war. And while nearly every other country on the planet realizes that this Israeli strategy is unjust, unsustainable, and short sighted, with the US now slowly coming around also, PJ expects one UN resolution to turn everything around immediately.

The point being attitudes change slowly, and often being on the wrong side of the world and UN consensus takes a long time to beat fruit. But it often beats a bloody all out war. When Israel realizes that it must provide justice to the Palestinian people to survive, it will happen, but the process will take time.

The US is sending the message to Israel that it can be as unjust as humanly possible and that the US will continue to support that.
As usual lemon shows that he is an idiot as well.

Since 1967 Israel has made peace with Egypt and given back the Sinai, made peace with Jordan, and made peace with Saudi Arabia.

The Palestinians on the other hand refuse any type of peace agreement and continue their futile war that results in the deaths of hundreds innocent women and children.

Also, ever notice that the definition of "Middle East cease fire" is that Israel will do nothing while Hamas launches all the rockets it wants??
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Israel will do it on their own. (See: Iraq and Syria). We will quietly supply what they need.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
I'll bet anyone $5 Obama gives Israel permission to attack Iran.

I'll take that bet.

The Big Thing (that no one has noted) is that for the most part we have created a Shia Domain in Iraq/Iran - a bloodied Iran will piece off a lot of folks in Iraq and most likely result in a substantial escalation of violence (whether the USA is 100% complicit or not) ...