Jump to content

New Middle Eastern War


padren

Recommended Posts

hello

 

the much faunted lebanese army many are saying should route out the hezbollah fighters, is a force of around 50,000 whom possess and handful of second hand sixties era tanks and personel carriers. which on a good day might start.

their airforce little more than a dozen rusting soviet planes of the same time frame that a single isreali f16 could take out in a matter of minutes.

lebanon is a country in name but has no power to do much of anything except be a target. for those not old enough a few decades ago both isreal and syria invaded in a small skirmish, and each set up their own puppet goverments. so infact there were two goverments running the country.

recently there was some headway by the lebanese in removing the syrian forces with help from the unitied nations. which promptly got the priminister who managed that asassinated.

 

and for those wondering when america will enter the war. well we already have. most of those lovely rockets and laser guided bombs being fire by the isreali's are actually built in the good ol' usa. and as they're used up we'll sell them more.

 

unleash the dogs of war.

 

 

the anti capitalist

 

mr d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do you mean "not militarily strong enough". Maybe the Lebanese don't want a civil war.
You raise a good point. Hezbollah has become so centralised within Lebanon that the Lebanese army could not fight against Hezbollah without potential for the start of a civil war. Having said that even if they wanted to take on Hezbollah they could not. In a war' date=' Lebanon vs. Hezbollah, Hezbollah would win. That's what I meant when I said they're "not militarily strong enough" to take on Hezbollah.

 

I belive it's wishful thinking that Hezbollah has been weakened. Common sense would suggest that a unjust aggression be met with anger/radical thinking and thus more support for the Hezbollah.
Maybe they will be angered, and this anger will make them want to continue the violence. But their buildings are being destroyed and their members killed, they don't want that to continue. I think Hezbollah has been weakened in that respect (loss of property and personnel) although I don't think you could ever destroy such a group.

 

No wonder some Lebanese people support the Hezbollah, in their mind they are freedom fighters. Considering the long occupation of south Lebanon by the Israelis. Terrorists are those one's guilty of terrorism. The kind of collective punishment you think is justified is itself a crime against international humanitarian rights.
The Lebanese thought good of Hezbollah when Israel left southern Lebanon many years ago. More recently, and especially since Hezbollah started the current situation, some Lebanese do not show the same support they showed many years ago when Israel occupied Lebanon.

 

I don't know what you are talking about where you mentioned "collective punishment..." nor do I understand what you think I think is justified, please explain those last 2 sentences in the above quote. I'll just emphasize the previous point. Hezbollah brought this upon the Lebanese people. Some want Hezbollah to fight against Israel, but many blame Hezbollah for this (we're talking about the Lebanese here).

 

mr d: why can you not use capital letters and proper paragraphs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The civilian terrorist complex I believe is seen to anyone in the region as a way to leverage political support with devoloped nations knowing full well what most of use pass right over. The detatchment from WAR and citizens. In the wartorn countries everyone is in, the people see war as engulfing the entire population and the idea of civilian/military is less clear cut than it is for most. While we in modernized nations will send militaries to fight one another, whether it be among cities and towns, the conflict is restricted to military personel. While this makes 'civilian' casualties lessened thanks to no carpet bombings/indesriminate bombs, it Solidifies the idea for most that only the military need be involved, and the seperation between daily life and war should be as minimized as possible..."I have a life to get on with, why should the war in blah blah blah influence my daily routine?"

 

A very good read, although Sci-fi in nature are many of the older Battletech(the books contain a lot of political talk when not focussing on the fighting) books, The Series named Twilight of the Clans, specificly makes clear my attitude on the subject.

To give a brief description, there exist a warrior like people using war as away of deciding almost every political differences. The war they fight is almost like a game, with distinct rules and regulations and verritibly 0 impact on the population other than a new flag over their heads(I see this as basicly NATO regulated warfare). The people of the rest of the universe end up getting into a war with them, except they fight more of a 'total' war, bombing manufacturing plants, power plants, and basically shutting down infrastructure for the entire society. The warrior culture civilization is appaulaed at this and there ends up being a larger conflict between the two. Eventually the 'total war' message gets driven home as a terrible thing and that any war should not exist other than to stop war altogether. Not a Siskel or an Ebert, just writting it up fast because this section isn't really that important(although I REALLY enjoyed the series :) ).

 

 

 

Point of ALL that is, I think the developed nations see war as something other than the physical solution to a problem, and more of a political end of the rope, when diplomacy won't get what you want. I feel the detatchment of the populace of countries from the wars they wage is leading to a lapse in the restraint of wars, and that when a country's populace wants a war it is seen as futile as there is no political agenda behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lebanese thought good of Hezbollah when Israel left southern Lebanon many years ago. More recently, and especially since Hezbollah started the current situation, some Lebanese do not show the same support they showed many years ago when Israel occupied Lebanon.

 

Meaning what exactly. If you compare the overwhelmingly support with that they have today, it still would amount to a solid base. The important thing is the recruiting and the counter productive actions taken by Israel. Ponder if Hezbollah ceased to exist or was nearly wiped out. The mind set and the situation of the Lebanese people are connected therefore the void that Israel would have created would be filled again. History tells us that this would create an even more radical group. To defeat the resistance you have to bargain, there is simply no other alternative.

 

I don't know what you are talking about where you mentioned "collective punishment..." nor do I understand what you think I think is justified, please explain those last 2 sentences in the above quote. I'll just emphasize the previous point. Hezbollah brought this upon the Lebanese people. Some want Hezbollah to fight against Israel, but many blame Hezbollah for this (we're talking about the Lebanese here).

 

I didn't think you were serious when you implied that the civilians that died as the result of Israeli bombings of heavily populated city blocks were in fact terrorists or the chance that they were. I mean it's hard to disguise on self as a child or elderly. Therefore I would assume that you meant civilians that support Hezbollah are terrorists themselves. To this I strongly disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think you were serious when you implied that the civilians that died as the result of Israeli bombings of heavily populated city blocks were in fact terrorists or the chance that they were. I mean it's hard to disguise on self as a child or elderly. Therefore I would assume that you meant civilians that support Hezbollah are terrorists themselves. To this I strongly disagree.

 

I am driving through a region in which I know the populace hates pespi, yet it is illegal to buy coke. I see a random person who looks fairly thirsty and I say to them "go buy a coke", and hand them the standard price for a coke in the area, with the intent they buy a drink, how am I not at least somewhat responsible for their actions? There are at least two parts to this, I funded their illegal activity, and I encouredged it take place.

 

Now liken that scene to that of the middle east. I see my neighbor who looks sad/angry and say "what's wrong?", to which they reply "Isreal!", to which I then sugjest maybe they should do something about it, something resounding and absolute. To which the neighbor infurs* that I meant killing Isrealis. Later that week a bomb falls onto my house and kills my children and horribly wounds my wife, and I scream WHYYYY!!! I am not involved in this conflict...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe (your opinion) that Iran is secretly trying to produce a nuclear weapon?

 

Bee

No' date=' not secretly. Something like that will not be and cannot be kept secret. I don't happen to think that everyone in Iran is crazy or "evil" (i hate that word, it's been hijacked). I think the [i']threat[/i] of producing a nuclear weapon is more effective for Iran than actually producing one. If they do manage to suitably enrich enough uranium and make a warhead (unlikely, IMO), I find it even less likely they would launch it at Israel (as this would mean Iran's assured destruction by Israel, possible by nuclear retaliation).

 

I accept that I am going to get slammed for my opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. I see Iran as the next "evil" country of choice to distract the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No' date=' not secretly. Something like that will not be and cannot be kept secret. I don't happen to think that everyone in Iran is crazy or "evil" (i hate that word, it's been hijacked). I think the [i']threat[/i] of producing a nuclear weapon is more effective for Iran than actually producing one. If they do manage to suitably enrich enough uranium and make a warhead (unlikely, IMO), I find it even less likely they would launch it at Israel (as this would mean Iran's assured destruction by Israel, possible by nuclear retaliation).

 

I accept that I am going to get slammed for my opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. I see Iran as the next "evil" country of choice to distract the voters.

 

Thanks for the honest opinion and I won't slam you.

 

First, I believe their intentions of pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes is a lie. Iran sits on huge oil reserves that would easily and more inexpensively satisfy all of their power requirements now and in the future.

 

What you see is a disguise for their true intention of building a weapon but I do agree with you that using it on Israel would be self annihilation. However, they could sell it to countries that would use it and done right so the finger cannot be pointed back to them. At least they would think that.

 

As far as Iran being evil. IMO it very much is. There is hard evidence obtained by many countries that Iran and Syria have their hands deep into terrorism. In reference to the middle east, the word evil is not being overused. It describes people who plan and target civilians for destruction. Not soldier killing soldier but soldiers purposely killing as many innocent civilians as possible. Women, children, babies are their primary targets.

 

I don't know what all the threats are, but Iran is tops on my list and should be stopped from going any further.

 

Bettina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are essentially the ones who is putting value on human life, when you allow some people to be killed, in favor of a different cause. To be sure, the amount of starvation and disease killing people off is attrocious, and we should certainly invest energy into getting at the root of the problem. But we would be foolish to ignore another threat elsewhere, just because it seems smaller.

 

I'm not, you're not understanding my position. I don't say we shouldn't care about those killed by terrorists, but those causalities are relatively low, as I don't think a guy from Israel is worth more than a guy in Africa, and as much more people are dying in Africa, I think we should focus more of our energy there. Sure, the causalities caused by terrorists are too high, it's always too high, but still, there's worse. I also agree we would be foolish to ignore terrorism, I've said it many times, but we are foolish to treat terrorism like it was the world's biggest problem. I'm only asking for a rational, proportionate reaction to the world's problems, especially about terrorism. When a few thousand deaths monopolized all the attention, there's a problem.

 

The way they compare is if' date=' for example, Iran develops nuclear technology and deploys nuclear weapons across America and Europe. On top of the initial death toll, which could easily match 30,000 (and I'd like to see a good/reliable source which matches that figure, which you gave) you also have all the radiation sickness and after effects of such a massive radioactive blast. As well as this it would destroy modern day life and be the start of WW3.

 

And regarding that #116. I was saying that to some people the Israelis are not strangers 10,000km away. They have some kind of connection. And so whilst there is a physical distance there is still a connection which means they are valued over someone else where there is no connection.[/quote']

 

Most of us have no family in the middle east, and some humanitarian problems are more pressing, I can easily understand that you care more about your family than anyone else, but I have difficulty to see how you can justify a "connection" with someone based on ethnic similarity. About the "comparison", nuclear bombs have never done close to an average of 30 000 deaths a day for an extended period, and that's only IF Iran get nuclear bombs (it's unlikely) and IF they would use it (that's also not certain). Israel will not let them have nukes. So, in short, a worst case scenario is getting all our focus while an even worse scenario is currently happening.

 

About deaths, precisely, it's about 15 500 deaths per day of children under 5 because of hunger (for a total of 5.6 millions death per year, only for children under 5!) [1] + 30 000 children under 5 per day for easily preventable problems (in short, because of poverty) [2]. Let's add on top of that ~10 000 dying because of AIDS (per day), nearly half a million deaths in Sudan, multiples civil wars... I find the comparison with our little problems insulting.

 

[1] UNICEF "Progress for Children"

[2] UNICEF "Childhood Under Threat"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel about the mass amounts of people in Iran who are publicly supporting the remarks of their leader, tertrahedrite? Does that worry you at all?

Yes, it does worry me. But so does the support for terrorism in the Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan et al. In fact North Korea worries me a lot more than Iran, they probably do have nukes and may soon have the ability to threaten with them (once again, I don't think they would launch them). The support of some of GWB's policies has led to the creation of a massive terrorist problem where there was none before, that worries me. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons worries me. The fact that two countries with nukes are argueing over Kashmir worries me (this is where I believe there is the greatest risk of nuclear war, not the middle east or North Korea).

 

If Iran is such a big threat to Israel, why are they attacking Lebanon and not Iran? I can't help the feeling of De Ja Vu that is creeping over me with respect to the ramping up of rhetoric over Iran (ie Iraq all over again)

 

It's not that I don't think Iran is bad, I just don't think they are the source of all evil as some people are making out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What costs more to combat, though. Terrorism or hunger?

 

Lots of lives could've been saved with only a small fraction of the money "invested" in the Iraq war. The US wouldn't be hated as much, and terrorism wouldn't be stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No' date=' not secretly. Something like that will not be and cannot be kept secret. I don't happen to think that everyone in Iran is crazy or "evil" (i hate that word, it's been hijacked). I think the [i']threat[/i] of producing a nuclear weapon is more effective for Iran than actually producing one. If they do manage to suitably enrich enough uranium and make a warhead (unlikely, IMO), I find it even less likely they would launch it at Israel (as this would mean Iran's assured destruction by Israel, possible by nuclear retaliation).

 

I accept that I am going to get slammed for my opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. I see Iran as the next "evil" country of choice to distract the voters.

 

I won't slam you either but it more than borders on a straw man to suggest that anyone is saying that "Iran is evil." However, Iran's system of government is a cause for concern. Most would distrust a fusion of church and state in this country. The founders of this country understood full well that there is no quicker way to create a hell on earth than to try to create heaven on earth.

 

I refer everyone against to B. Lewis' wonderful little book, "What went wrong?" Bernard Lewis is a professor emertius at Princeton in Near East studies and has been described as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." Mr. Ajami, Majid Khadduri Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies described Lewis as "one of the academic gods" who he holds in "awe." In this abstract of an article in the Atlantic Monthly he summarizes the point:

 

By all standards of the modern world—economic development, literacy, scientific achievement—Muslim civilization, once a mighty enterprise, has fallen low. Many in the Middle East blame a variety of outside forces. But underlying much of the Muslim world's travail may be a simple lack of freedom.

 

In his post 9/11 afterword to What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, Lewis highlights the tension within the Islamic world between those who define the "object of the struggle [as] the elimination of intrusive Western power and corrupting Western influence from all lands of Islam, and the restoration of Islamic authenticity and authority in these lands. When this has been accomplished, the stage will be set for the final struggle to bring God's message to all mankind in all the world."

 

But Lewis notes that for a growing number of Muslims:

 

[T]he issue is not religion or nationality, not this or that frontier or territory, but freedom - the right to live their own lives, in a free and open society under a representative and responsible government. For them the prime enemy is not the outsider, be he defined a foreigner, infidel, or as imperialist, but heir own rulers, regimes that maintain themselves by tyranny at home and terrorism abroad and have failed by every measure of governmental achievement except survival. The numbers and influence of these freedom seekers is difficult to assess, since the public expression of such views is forbidden and subject to the direst of penalties. They receive little help from those who should be their natural allies in the free world, notably those who present themselves as their friends and advocates, but who prefer to deal with corrupt tyrants, provided that they are amenable, rather than risk the hazards of regime change.

 

One can only hope that, in time, the cause of freedom will triumph once again as it has already triumphed over the Nazis and the Communists. If it does not, the outlook for the Islamic world, and perhaps for the West, will be grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is a list of countries with nuclear weapons. There are currently seven states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, two non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India and Pakistan. Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has never confirmed or denied this, and there have been reports that over 100 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognised by international bodies; none of these three countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea has publicly declared itself to possess nuclear weapons though it has not conducted any confirmed tests and its ultimate status is still unknown. Iran has been accused by Western nations of attempting to develop uranium enrichment technology for weapons purposes. As of February 4, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran to the United Nations Security Council in response to Western concerns on their possible nuclear programs."

 

(Mod edit: from Wikipedia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel about the mass amounts of people in Iran who are publicly supporting the remarks of their leader

Iran has lots of population and only a fraction of the population supports the leaders. There is also a fraction that is against the leaders. However, the government does not allow the people who are against them to speak up or show thier opinions. There are many many people in Iran that are totally against the leaders but if they speak up, they'll get beaten up and killed. In Iran if you want to publicy support some thing, you either support the leaders or you go to jail and possibly die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that there's an undercurrent of political opposition in Iran, but international disputes generally work against that undercurrent (increasing support for the government). Those reports do not make it sound to me like "only a fraction of the population supports the leaders", but I can see how that might be generally possible if you look at it from the day-to-day perspective. The socio-political environment seems more like Cuba than North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The land did not originally belong to the Arabs. We have no idea who it originally belonged to. The Jews have as valid a case for ownership as the Arabs. The idea that we can set an arbitrary starting point, and place that one ahead of another claim, is pretty ludicrous in a land that has probably been utilized by various migrating ethnic groups for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Absolutely right on the money. I tried to dig into the history books to find out who's land it really was and all I found was what you always find when you go digging into history - no clear answer. It does however seem the Jews have been kicked around and enslaved by that part of the world for most of their existence. Establishing their own state and then fighting for it appears, to me anyway, like the underdog finally getting a taste of victory.

 

So it all comes down to muscle. Not exactly our idea of moral high ground, but that's how all land on the earth has been distributed. I doubt there's a square inch of land on the earth that hasn't been stolen or taken away from somebody else. Just like I doubt there's a race of humans out there who haven't been enslaved and been slave drivers at some point in history - just some more than others.

 

That said, Israel should move. Not because I don't think they deserve to live there, they do. Israel has a right to bomb Hezbollah - they are not wrong for that, even though civilians are being killed. Hezbollah is in the wrong - no doubt. But it doesn't matter that they're right. Their bombing campaign in lebanon will create new terrorists, new scars and validate the lies and propaganda used by terrorists to recruite. Everytime this conflict sparks up into fighting that is what happens.

 

This conflict will never, ever end as long as Israel exists. It's not fair, but it's the truth. For their own sake, they should move. It's just pragmatic. They are this little bitty country, surrounded by millions, if not billions of people who absolutely hate them and who's religion preaches for their destruction.

 

After watching all of the death and destruction by these Arabs resulting from a freaking "cartoon", for crying out loud, it should be apparent by now - there's not a diplomatic bone in their bodies. They are trust fund states. If they didn't have oil, they wouldn't have anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving? That's not an option. If Israel were to move (not that that would even be a physical possibility) then the terrorists would have one. That would give them a sense of invisibility... who knows what they would try to do after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello

 

rallies in iran are much like they were for iraq under sudam. buses show up they herd people on to them and dump you out at the rally. attendance is what you might call manditory.

once there troops are strategically placed out of camera shot, while the plain clothes morality polices helpfully mingle amounst the crowd. they're so if you need assistance knowing how and when to cheer properly then can aid by queing you. so much easier to run these spontanious demonstrations.

 

mr d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving? That's not an option. If Israel were to move (not that that would even be a physical possibility) then the terrorists would have one. That would give them a sense of invisibility... who knows what they would try to do after that.

 

Actually, on a lighter note, we were entertaining the idea of a new kind of bombing campaign over there. We need to send a constant stream of B-52's dropping Ipods, X-Box's, porn, fast food, pot, computers - we need to bring America to them. Once the citizens get ahold of all this fun stuff, they might actually consider "living" for a change....hmm imagine that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure? His rallies look pretty heavily attended to me. you got proof of that?

I believe there is approximately 30% iranians in Iran who are anti-government and against the leaders. I have no proof, i searched google and asked some persians familiar with politics, they said approximately 30 %.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, on a lighter note, we were entertaining the idea of a new kind of bombing campaign over there. We need to send a constant stream of B-52's dropping Ipods, X-Box's, porn, fast food, pot, computers - we need to bring America to them. Once the citizens get ahold of all this fun stuff, they might actually consider "living" for a change....hmm imagine that.

 

You made me laugh.... :) :-) Thanks.

 

But this is what I've always thought too... except for the porn and pot. Magazines with pictures would be a great idea for them to see what their government is not allowing them to see or have.

 

I like that idea...

 

Bee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that there's an undercurrent of political opposition in Iran, but international disputes generally work against that undercurrent (increasing support for the government). Those reports do not make it sound to me like "only a fraction of the population supports the leaders", but I can see how that might be generally possible if you look at it from the day-to-day perspective. The socio-political environment seems more like Cuba than North Korea.

 

Its always worth noting that "support" for a government is a very fuzzy term and cannot be summed up with yes/no polls.

 

Many people would support a different leader than GW over here, but would still go to war and fight to the death to defend the process by which he was elected. Iranians may want varying degrees of reform, varying by demographic and geography, and may be skeptical as to even if what they want is promised, if it would be delivered by a new leader.

 

I would bet the vast majority of Iranians would not support an Iraq model "emergent democracy" over there though, we haven't gotten much "cred" for our work to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made me laugh.... :) :-) Thanks.

 

But this is what I've always thought too... except for the porn and pot. Magazines with pictures would be a great idea for them to see what their government is not allowing them to see or have.

 

I like that idea...

 

Bee

 

pot and xboxes airdropped for free....but if they want doritos and 7-11 hot dogs they have to initiate legistlative reform...by the gods that may just work. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.