27 May 2020, 08:00:58 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages:  1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: 9 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy  (Read 14991 times)
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: 26 June 2010, 02:05:07 »
ReplyReply

-snip- ...Its bad for the site. ... -snip-

-snip- ...our brethren. -snip- ..., I think avoidance limits the depth of  the site. ... -snip-

I am all with FacMan here, and I also think we should discuss this once and for all so that everybody knows where he stands and can make his decisions in respect. I am tired of seeing the same arguments repeated over and over again as to whether having a political forum on a military site harms or helps the issue, I feel a decision would help all sides (whether they like it or not). Either from top down or maybe through a poll, I would sincerely ask the powers in place to let us know what it will and should be.

My reasoning (and I know I am repeating myself here, but only partially: FacMan gave me a new insight) is basically that we live on a planet moved by politics, whether we like it or not, and that this background imposes on us a lot of actions and reactions that we can only treat appropriately when being conscious about the fact. This thought alone makes me feel that the discussion not only of the "how" but also of the "why" for each topic does not shame a military site at all, even if most other military sites think the other way round (but even there I have never heard Nazi Ideology should not be discussed for understanding broader issues which makes me suspect that there is some kind of selective measure on the table when it e.g. comes to Israael or other current conflicts). What is more, who does not want to read political opinons can easily stay out of the respective form if he does not want to take heat for any views he has on the reasons for some conflicts.

With FacMans input I additionally feel tht I personally am way more disposed to accept a political stance or opinion from a person who is (or was) into soldiering than from a person not member of this special family: Brethren, as FacMan called it: I *know*, e.g.,  that there are great Taliban soldiers out there as well that deserve all due respect from a family member and I would sincerely welcome their view on things here as I do Stoffel´s or MadRussian´s.

I have no problem with other soldiers having a different view on things than myself, I even just because of the fact that they stand where they stand take them more serious than I normally would, lets say, in a bar discussion. OTOH I expect the same from them. If someone really feels he needs to leave WaT because a certain group of (ex) soldiers (!) expresses and opinion  he cannot share, my take is: So be it. Being aable to accept the existance of and different views on life (and war) is part of an soldiers stand from my POV.

We lose members because of having a political forum? Maybe. ... But we also might gain members because of having it: I personally find a site where we can listen to a Vietcong view of the war with the same respect for a soldier as to an US soldier POV much more interesting than others where none or only one "historically/politically" correct view is "offically" allowed.

My 2c,

Rattler

« Last Edit: 26 June 2010, 02:12:01 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #41 on: 26 June 2010, 08:32:48 »
ReplyReply

A solution might be a two state option.
I will be the first to condemn Israel if they do not reply...but in order for that to happen several things have to be done first.

1) All Palestinian terrorgroups should be dismantled and their arms and rockets destroyed. ( both sides should not ask for criminal charges, however , very bad criminals/terrorists should not be alowed to get any governmental function)
2) A Palestinian police force backed up by UN personell to guard the borders.
3) all Arab states should recognize Israel and remove the chapters to destroy Israel.

Only if these 3 demands are fullfilled there is a chance of peace.
For the Arab states this would not be hard to do, so why wont they?

Because they envy Israel and want its wealth and resources?
Or is it because Israel has something that Arab countries fear, like freedom and democracy?



I think this is a pipe dream at best, the area is not big enough to support two functioning nations, there is no way in hell that a Palestinian state can function when it is made up half a dozen scattered bits of land and if the Palestinian state can not function properly then there will never be stability or peace.

So:
1. More than likely would happen with any agreement.
2. It would have to be a UN force comprised almost entirely of troops from Muslim nations as anything else would cause friction.
3. Not relevant to anything, International relations have to be negotiated between individual countries and should have nothing to do with any potential Palestinian agreement.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1886


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: 26 June 2010, 18:53:02 »
ReplyReply

Oh.

There is plenty of room, remember where the biggest part of Palestina should be?

Jordan.......unfortunately everybody tends to forget that everytime.
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
MontyB
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

New Zealand

Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1005




View Profile
« Reply #43 on: 26 June 2010, 23:01:06 »
ReplyReply

Oh.

There is plenty of room, remember where the biggest part of Palestina should be?

Jordan.......unfortunately everybody tends to forget that everytime.


So you idea of a 2 state solution is to move Palestinians to Jordan?

Somehow I think that solution is already dead but to be blunt that has been the cornerstone of Palestinian/Israeli "peace" negotiations for years where both sides make unrealistic proposals knowing that the other side can not accept them so life goes on as usual.

The funny thing in all of this is that the only genuinely viable option for a Palestinian state and one that gives you all three of your demands is the Hamas proposal (who knew those crazy bastards would make sense) and that was a return to the 1967 borders but we all know that wont happen until Israel is pushed back beyond those borders (then they will look attractive).

But currently Israel is still trying to create peace on their terms through military means and the Palestinians are still happy to make peace by destroying Israel and until both sides realise they are not going to get everything they want neither side will get anything more than death and destruction.

From a Western perspective there is an easy fix, stop funding both of them blockade the entire area nothing in and nothing out when they are both at the point that they can no longer fight then they will reach peace on equal terms.
Logged

We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #44 on: 27 June 2010, 15:30:17 »
ReplyReply

-snip- ...Its bad for the site. ... -snip-

-snip- ...our brethren. -snip- ..., I think avoidance limits the depth of  the site. ... -snip-

I am all with FacMan here, and I also think we should discuss this once and for all so that everybody knows where he stands and can make his decisions in respect. I am tired of seeing the same arguments repeated over and over again as to whether having a political forum on a military site harms or helps the issue, I feel a decision would help all sides (whether they like it or not). Either from top down or maybe through a poll, I would sincerely ask the powers in place to let us know what it will and should be.

My reasoning (and I know I am repeating myself here, but only partially: FacMan gave me a new insight) is basically that we live on a planet moved by politics, whether we like it or not, and that this background imposes on us a lot of actions and reactions that we can only treat appropriately when being conscious about the fact. This thought alone makes me feel that the discussion not only of the "how" but also of the "why" for each topic does not shame a military site at all, even if most other military sites think the other way round (but even there I have never heard Nazi Ideology should not be discussed for understanding broader issues which makes me suspect that there is some kind of selective measure on the table when it e.g. comes to Israael or other current conflicts). What is more, who does not want to read political opinons can easily stay out of the respective form if he does not want to take heat for any views he has on the reasons for some conflicts.

With FacMans input I additionally feel tht I personally am way more disposed to accept a political stance or opinion from a person who is (or was) into soldiering than from a person not member of this special family: Brethren, as FacMan called it: I *know*, e.g.,  that there are great Taliban soldiers out there as well that deserve all due respect from a family member and I would sincerely welcome their view on things here as I do Stoffel´s or MadRussian´s.

I have no problem with other soldiers having a different view on things than myself, I even just because of the fact that they stand where they stand take them more serious than I normally would, lets say, in a bar discussion. OTOH I expect the same from them. If someone really feels he needs to leave WaT because a certain group of (ex) soldiers (!) expresses and opinion  he cannot share, my take is: So be it. Being aable to accept the existance of and different views on life (and war) is part of an soldiers stand from my POV.

We lose members because of having a political forum? Maybe. ... But we also might gain members because of having it: I personally find a site where we can listen to a Vietcong view of the war with the same respect for a soldier as to an US soldier POV much more interesting than others where none or only one "historically/politically" correct view is "offically" allowed.

My 2c,
Rattler


as forum owner and admin I said from day 1 (also see our 'rules) that ALL subjects should be discussable with certain limits...mainly respect for the issue and other members.

If/when we should avoid or ban all subjects that are 'political' based we'll end with only a 'lounge' forum....

Every single war and conflict has been politicaly based, politicians started them, politicians kept them going on and finally they pulled the plug (money) out.
Not only war/conflict subjects are politically based but who buys weapons? Who invests money into arms factories? Politicians! So should we delete the 'equipment' boards also?

I feel that the start of banning will be easy but where does it stop?

We start with 'Israel' but where do we stop? What if an American citizen shows up and feels discussing the Vietnam war is a political discussion and should be banned?

What if I, as Belgian citizen, would have a problem discussing the Belgian history in WWI and WWII? In both cases politics and royals were involved and did not always perform as they should!

Ofcourse, and stated in the rules, we don't allow propaganda for extreme parties such as Nazism, SS or/and other fanatics but that doesn't mean they can't be discussed!

Couple of days ago I saw a terryfying movie where a young muslima was thrown out of the US because she tried to discuss 9/11 in her classroom and on forums. Yes, it's only a movie but this also shows that 'discussing' subjects is a privilige, a positive result of democracy. And is that not the main fundation of our lives? Freedom of speech? Democracy?

And yes, even with this statement I just wrote I'm awaiting reactions but that's why I started a forum in the first place!

We have a unique chance here since, altough we are few, we have a good mixture with soldiers, ex-soldiers, civilians from countries all over the world.

We MUST be grateful we have the opportunity to discuss all subjects amongs ourselves, lots of people would/are/will be jealous we can/do!
Logged
FACman
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Ar-kansas
Posts: 819




View Profile
« Reply #45 on: 27 June 2010, 16:46:41 »
ReplyReply

Koen!   hatsoff
Logged

"You can call me by my first name...Sarge."
Pages:  1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 29177503 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 26 August 2018, 06:10:22