Geo-Politics

[MBreinin]

i immigrated to Canada from Israel around 4 years ago.. lived in Israel for 11 years

Israel's main goal is peace but all arab countries around just wont let it happen... attack Israeli cities with hundreds of missles a day, suicide bombers... life there is pretty hursh.. you can walk on the street and out of no where a missle will strike you or a suicide bomber who happened to be walking becide you will explode.. you go on a bus and you never know if it will explode or not.. these terrorists attack and kidnapp soldiers and then torture them to deah.. so Israel has no choice.. the world is pissed off because civilians are hurt.. well... terrorists are holding a gun in 1 hand and a baby in their other hand

remember a few weeks ago the incident on a gaza beach.. a whole palastinian family was killed because of Israel missle.. well then they found out that terrorist set up bombs and killed their own people.. but the first impression was already made and the world got pissed off..

its pissing me off how terrorists with no tanks, airplanes and technology are able to win a country with the latest technology and one of the best military in the world.. all because of Israel's stupid government..the PM is very weak and doesn't know what he's doing atleas thats how it looks like

i say fuck what the world thinks, bomb the shit out of them and stop the terror.. but that wont happen


edit: look at CNN.. pissing me off too.. they just talk about how Israel bombs Lebanon.. they dont talk about how 300 missles a day are coming from Lebanon on Israel civilians..

There you go, inside info from someone who has lived it.

And, I agree 100%.

I have been to Israel twice and it is a great and proud nation. It was a great feeling to be among a nation of strong people, unlike my people in the US, who have a tendency to pussies.

Mike

[horns666]

Waite, the the shit is really gonna hit the fan..

Big Time!

It's just a matter of when..

[fett]

A very strong understanding of the history of this region is mandatory to make any sense of where there they are now. I can not think of any region that has been so messed over by the "West" after winning two world wars. Well, I can, but that's Europe. But they are the "West" . Oh, yea, there's Africa. That's an unsung story. The Middle East, as it stands now, was created by the "West". Iran "threw the bums out" and is now in the cat bird's seat. This is history in the making without a World War. And we can sit back and watch it unfold on TV. Stay tuned.

[petedz]

Israel has my unconditional support.

I do see that the Lebanese are victims of a sort. They're like a small town that doesn't have the muscle to kick out the rampaging biker gang. I wonder, if they had asked the U.N., the U.S., or even Israel for help--pulicly or covertly--before the excrement hit the impeller, would they still be in this fix?

I'm hoping that Iran's government suffers some kind of repercussion from all this, but I'm not holding my breath.

[fett]

Here's what I don't get. We, the neocons, ( I'm reading a great book about the Iraq War) saw fit to invade a country, Iraq, and overthrow a government based on "facts" that weren't. The muted response by the West regarding the current situation blows my mind. It's like they want this decades old "situation" to play itself out now and they know who will win. The status won't be so quo when this is all over.

[YetAnotherOne]

Also there isnt a chance in Hell anyone will fire a Nuclear weapon. Arthur C Clarke famously said "if we can get 50years without using them again then we never will" and he is probrobly right. It was only a year or so ago that we passed the 50years since he said it.

If the world were static and the only nations in possession of nuclear weapons were the US and USSR it might well be true that 50 years of non-use would lead to a stalemate unlikely to be broken. We saw as much following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But to believe that one knows with 100% certainty that a completely stark raving mad North Korean leader will not lash out with his most dangerous weapons when his regime finally collapses seems a bit of a stretch. Similarly I believe you have to take the Iranian president at his word when he says that he'd gladly exchange the destruction of Iran for the destruction of Israel. And we can't forget a nuclear-armed Pakistan whose ISI is responsible for the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan and appears to be responsible for the recent terrorist attacks in India.

Personally I doubt that any of those three will survive in their current form 50 years beyond the date they acquired their first nuclear weapon. When they dissolve (if not before) their stockpiles will come into play.

[fett]

I grew up during the Cold War, "Duck and Cover". We knew who the enemy was. The Post WW2 world was easy to figure out. The world , today, has threats coming from everywhere. My '50's and '60's world was real large. Now, the world is shrinking due to too many people with their own agendas. It is the natural order of things, but it's way more scary now.

[lerxstcat]

Thanks for bringing Iran up. There was a thread a long time ago when everyone was worried about Iraq. I stated that Iran was the one to watch. They are sleepers and control the whole region. We went after the wrong counrty and now it's coming home to roost. We, the West, don't even have a clue as to how to deal with this. We started it by making "nations" out of tribes and kingdoms with no idea of their history. We thought our Western ideals could be transplanted in a group of people that don't have a clue about what we are talking about. Well, we are wrong and we are goimg to be stuck with dealing with another war with people that play by different ideas and rules. For them, it's "Us or Them" to the death. Western influence will not work. This just sucks.

Actually, I believe the REAL reason we went into Iraq was so we'd already have 100,000+ troops in the area, with supply systems in place, before the shit hit the fan with Iran. Saddam had it coming, and we have troops on both borders with Iran as well as heavy naval and USAF assets in place.

As for how to deal with it, diplomacy is useless, but force is something they understand. The fact that we have overwhelming power and tiptoe around lest we hit civilians,,akes us weak in their eyes. They are right about that to be blunt. We are right to do that, but when a dirty bomb or a nuke hits us at home, that veneer of civilization will disappear. When faced with the need to survive, we will play as dirty as they do WITH our overwhelming force. WWIII will be a nuclear war, one way or another.

[fett]

If that's the method in our madness, I don't see it. I think the Bush administration got a wild itch to instill "Democracy" in a country that was just begging to get slapped down. Not only that, George W was pissed that Iraq had it out for George H W. God, I hope it didn't come down to: "Gee, Dad, I finished it for you. Aren't you proud of me?" Remember, the Iran-Iraq War killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and nothing was gained or lost. This is how they think. Iran will fight it out if we even set one foot in their country.

[lerxstcat]

If that's the method in our madness, I don't see it. I think the Bush administration got a wild itch to instill "Democracy" in a country that was just begging to get slapped down. Not only that, George W was pissed that Iraq had it out for George H W. God, I hope it didn't come down to: "Gee, Dad, I finished it for you. Aren't you proud of me?" Remember, the Iran-Iraq War killed hundreds of thousands on both sides and nothing was gained or lost. This is how they think. Iran will fight it out if we even set one foot in their country.

But we don't have to set foot in their country to destroy its military, its nuke program and its economic power. The USAF and US Navy can do that from the air and water. Of course the Israeli Air force will probably be a big help in that job.

Iran is enough like Iraq that the people will welcome the crushing of the regime of the ayatollahs. They never dreamt that it would be so much worse than the shah's regime until it was too late.

As for the Iranian military, it's built on the model of the US military of 40 years ago. That model was good enough to fight the Iraqi army to a standstill, with great difficulty. It's not good enough to fight the US military of 2006 successfully.

Even an Iran that's a seething cesspool of anarchy and insurgency will be much better than an Iran that's keeping Hezbollah and Hamas in high grass right now. Militant Islam has called us out, and will deal us harsher and harsher blows until we finally crush it. Iran is the head of the snake, how long do we let it grow before we cut it off?

Remember, they came looking for us. We didn't ask for this. Don't let the apologists of Anmerican decadence tell you that we did. That would be the elements of the left, in case someone doesn't already know that.

[MichaelLitvak]

Israel has my unconditional support.

I do see that the Lebanese are victims of a sort. They're like a small town that doesn't have the muscle to kick out the rampaging biker gang. I wonder, if they had asked the U.N., the U.S., or even Israel for help--pulicly or covertly--before the excrement hit the impeller, would they still be in this fix?

I'm hoping that Iran's government suffers some kind of repercussion from all this, but I'm not holding my breath.

The U.N sucks. It is a corrupt organization that doesn't know what's going on.. there are U.N people in Lebanon and they mostly do nothing.. the most they do is pretend they didnt see hizballah terrorists "stealing" their cars so they can put a bomb in it or use it to kidnap soldiers

[YetAnotherOne]

I think the Bush administration got a wild itch to instill "Democracy" in a country that was just begging to get slapped down.

There's an awful lot of truth in that statement fett but I know you're old enough to see the irony: W is doing little more than implementing the foreign policy goals of JFK. From a foreign policy perspective the Democrats and Republicans have almost completely switched sides over the last 40 years or so.

It's certainly convenient in the context of the current skirmishing in Lebanon that Ba'athist Syria has 20,000 US Marines sitting on its eastern border rather than a well-armed Ba'athist Iraqi regime. The relative isolation of Syria is a good thing for those who don't want to see this blow up into something much larger. And who knows, the Bekaa Valley (Hizb'Allah's hideout) has been the focus of persistent rumors that have Saddam's WMD stockpiles spirited there just before the war. Who knows what the Israelis might find if they decide to conduct a proper campaign.

[petedz]

The U.N sucks. It is a corrupt organization that doesn't know what's going on.. there are U.N people in Lebanon and they mostly do nothing.. the most they do is pretend they didnt see hizballah terrorists "stealing" their cars so they can put a bomb in it or use it to kidnap soldiers

Remember the big party when Lebanon told Syria to take a hike? What if they had kept pushing and risked civil war against Hizbullah? What if they had gone to the security council when things got dicey? I'm not saying I know how it would have turned out, but at least they could have tried.

[fett]

There is a big difference between the world that JFK dealt with and now. Here in lies the definition of a "neocon". While Clinton was in office, the Rummy's of the world sat and steamed. A classic "conservative" would not give a rat's ass about the rest of the world as long as we had the nukes to shut them up. The "liberal" reference to international politics was to spoon feed "democracy" where needed. And leave it at that. With the fall of the USSR as our equal, and with the new Republican administration, the "light" went on when all those old guys from Bush I came to town. Now, "WE" have the power to force our "democratic" will around the world. A "neocon" is nothing more than a "liberal" with a gun. The Cheney's and all the rest are eating this "Power" up. Boy, is there going to be a backlash come the next Prez election.

[RacerX]

Boy, is there going to be a backlash come the next Prez election.

Heh, that's what everbody was sayin' in 2004. Some backlash.