|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 26, 2006 11:43:43 GMT -5
The mistake that George Bush made in Iraq was he tried to give the American a reason for "occupying" Iraq - et voila - we learn everything and anything about WMD's. Bush could have been a prophet if he revealed the real intention for invading Iraq - to bring freedom and democracy to the most volatile area of the globe. They did try to say that, both publicly and privately, with the now famous Wolfowitz Doctrine. Unfortunately, they also campaigned on a platform that said "no nation building" and the US public in general could care less about bringing freedom and democracy to the most volatile area of the globe. There is also a growing school of thought that says bringing freedom and democracy to people isn't always a great idea. Witness the election, through free and democratic votes, of Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavev. The problem with giving people the right to vote, is that they often use it. The US won the war in Iraq because there is now a strong military buffer between Iran and Syria. One false move by Iran and the US can mobilize their troops in a matter of minutes and bring the war to Iran ..... without the invasion the US mobilization could have taken days. Also part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Unfortunately, while it *may* work in theory, in reality it's already a failure. The US hasn't been able to pacify Iraq, how will they be able to pacify Iraq AND Iran? Not only is Iran a much more militant and fanatical country than Iraq ever was, it's also much, much larger. By about 40 million people. While the US could beat the Iranians in a conventional war, Iraq has shown the war won't be fought by conventional means. The US would go from being unable to pacify a volatile country of 26 million, to trying to pacify TWO volatile countries, of 94 million. Good luck winning the next election on that platform. I believe Israel won the war against Hezbollah due to similar reasoning. They showed the Hezbollah and the world what they were capable of "when the entire world" was staying neutral or making reserved comments about their tactics. Nobody has every doubted that Israel has much more military might than anybody else in the region. They never had to show anybody that. They only reason they continue to exist as a country is because they have much more military might, AND everybody else knows it. The only reason they "held back" was global pressure regarding how they were responding to a kidnapping of their soldiers. Imagine, how they would of responded if the world said publicly "Israel is right and what they are doing is the right response". They would have pummelled Hexbollah and Lebanon to the ground. But they didn't, did they? The only way Arab-Israeli wars can be won is if there is a clear winner in the war .... in other words let them duke it out. Doesn't this contradict your belief that Israel won the war? You say that the only way an Arab-Israeli war can be won is if there is a clear winner... but in the paragraph before you admit that they held back, and didn't pummel Hezbollah into the ground. Since they didn't pummel them, they didn't get the clear-cut win, and as I have said before, a tie in Arab eyes is just as good as a win. Heck, even a loss can be considered a win by them, if they are still standing and able to fight another day. Which is the case. As for Hezbollah throwing money around and looking like demi-Gods , well why can't Canada, the US, Britain, and Austrailia (hell all the G8 countries) publicly state that they will help rebuild Lebanon once Hezbollah has been irradicated and they will start by building top of the line hospitals and schools, etc .... 2 can play that game. That was what I suggested earlier in the other thread. That they needed to Marshall Plan the country. But they aren't. The biggest "rebuilders" in Lebanon today are not Canada, the US, Britain and Australia, it's Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. Two can play that game, but so far only one is willing. And it's not our side.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 26, 2006 12:01:38 GMT -5
As I have stated in other posts ... Israel has to win every war, the Arabs need only win one. This is why this is an Israel victory. It is not an irradication of the conflicts, the world wont let Israel do that. If the world turned a blind eye and let Israel WIN the war it would be over in a matter of days ... no matter what the type of war - conventional or non-conventional.
Because no matter how far the Arabs are willing to go for their jihad .... the Israelis are willing to go way farther to preserve their nation. The Israelis would have thought nothing of killing half of Lebanon if left alone ... they all had the potential to be Hezbollah or suicide bombers and they wouldnt have cared.
Civilian deaths only perturb "us" and give the terorist's ammo to tear at the world's heart strings while hiding behind them .... Israel wouldnt have cared and just kept bombing if the world got out of their way ... and there will be a day where israel will not listen to the concerns of the world and you will see the total annilihation of Syria, Iran and Lebanon.
And I wouldn't underestimate the American presence in the region. One A-bomb on Tehran ... it is a drastic measure yes ... but the Arab world does not think for a second that the Americans have the "cahones" to bomb another city like they did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima ... it would be one way to show them "think again". The possibility is always there and I don't think Iran want to engage the Americans until they are certain they have the same "deterrant" at their disposal ....and if they don't let everyone know how far their nuclear program has advanced ...drastic measures may have to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 26, 2006 12:05:13 GMT -5
The problem with giving people the right to vote, is that they often use it. Two responses: 1. Truer words never spoken. 2. Except in North America.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 26, 2006 12:08:53 GMT -5
there will be a day where israel will not listen to the concerns of the world and you will see the total annilihation of Syria, Iran and Lebanon. And more of the world as well
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 26, 2006 12:12:35 GMT -5
The problem with giving people the right to vote, is that they often use it. Two responses: 1. Truer words never spoken. 2. Except in North America. Just because people have the right to vote and live in a democracy does not mean they have freedom. Rigged elections, duress, fear, all occur in "democratic" nations ...especially newly formd ones. And electing a "dictator / totalitarian regime" in fact makes the country a defacto non-democratic nation. A democratic nation has the ability to vote out (without fear of lives) a leader and elect another ....even Castro was elected , is that a democracy, do they have freedom?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Aug 26, 2006 14:30:51 GMT -5
Shirley no one is seriously suggesting that Bush's comptrollers or the American public has any deep commitment to "democracy and "freedom" - I'll gag if I hear that clown use the term one more tme- .
A nation that believes in freedom recognizes the intrinsic rights of other nation states and therefore the rule of international law that safeguards legitimate rights. Bush is more of a dumb self-interested bully than a "freedom fighter". Gag. Propaganda's effects are astounding.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 26, 2006 14:41:03 GMT -5
As I have stated in other posts ... Israel has to win every war, the Arabs need only win one. This is why this is an Israel victory. It is not an irradication of the conflicts, the world wont let Israel do that. If the world turned a blind eye and let Israel WIN the war it would be over in a matter of days ... no matter what the type of war - conventional or non-conventional. That depends on your definition of "win", which is usually based on what you define your goals as, going into the war. Hezbollah goals: * Engage Israel: done * Cause Israeli deaths: done * Remain alive as entity: done * Increase their standing in the Arab world: done * Recruit to their cause: done * Deflect world attention away from their puppet master and their nuclear ambitions: done Israeli goals: Eliminate the threat of Hezbollah rockets: not done Get those two kidnapped soldiers back: not done Establish a security zone in southern Lebanon that would prevent future attacks: not done Because no matter how far the Arabs are willing to go for their jihad .... the Israelis are willing to go way farther to preserve their nation. The Israelis would have thought nothing of killing half of Lebanon if left alone ... they all had the potential to be Hezbollah or suicide bombers and they wouldnt have cared. True, but again I think you are ignoring the goals behind THIS war. Hezbollah wasn't trying to irradicate Israel today, this year, with this war. They had other goals, and they seemed to have accomplished just about all of them. Civilian deaths only perturb "us" and give the terorist's ammo to tear at the world's heart strings while hiding behind them .... Israel wouldnt have cared and just kept bombing if the world got out of their way ... and there will be a day where israel will not listen to the concerns of the world and you will see the total annilihation of Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Now you are thinking like HFLA, and the problem with that is, you can't kill them all. Even if, hypothetically, Israel decided they were going to nuke every Arab country in the region, to get rid of them once and for all, and even if the world would let them do it, who would want to live in Israel after that? Think any crops are going to be growing there? Think the water supply won't glow in the dark? Think any transport ships are going to be sailing through those radiation charged prevailing winds? And I wouldn't underestimate the American presence in the region. One A-bomb on Tehran ... it is a drastic measure yes ... but the Arab world does not think for a second that the Americans have the "cahones" to bomb another city like they did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima ... it would be one way to show them "think again". The possibility is always there and I don't think Iran want to engage the Americans until they are certain they have the same "deterrant" at their disposal ....and if they don't let everyone know how far their nuclear program has advanced ...drastic measures may have to be taken. I don't think the Americans have the cahones to do that. They don't have the support of their own public in such a scenario (elections this fall), the international community wouldn't support them (not that it really matters), and the long range fall-out from such a drastic action would be enormous, and I'm not talking about nuclear fall-out. Nuke an Iranian city, and Islamic fanatics around the world will laugh out loud. Because they'll have about 50 million new recruits, ready to strap high explosive to themselves and walk onto a New York subway. Even if Iran's nuclear program is advanced, nobody is going to listen to the US intelligence community, not after the WMD in Iraq fiasco. They blew all their collateral there, and it's going to cost them now.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 26, 2006 14:44:20 GMT -5
Two responses: 1. Truer words never spoken. 2. Except in North America. Just because people have the right to vote and live in a democracy does not mean they have freedom. Rigged elections, duress, fear, all occur in "democratic" nations ...especially newly formd ones. And electing a "dictator / totalitarian regime" in fact makes the country a defacto non-democratic nation. A democratic nation has the ability to vote out (without fear of lives) a leader and elect another ....even Castro was elected , is that a democracy, do they have freedom? Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavez were all elected in free elections that were not rigged, were not conducted in duress, and which did not have any fear tactics used. The winners of the elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Venezuela won the old fashioned way - they won the hearts and minds of the people. All three of those countries still have democratic laws in place, and as it stands right now, the people of all three of those countries are free to remove from office whoever they chose. They simply choose not to.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 27, 2006 4:18:28 GMT -5
Fighting fanatical muslims is like fighting a hive of bees. Individuals are willing to die for their hive. It does no good to punish, only the bees that have already stung you. You have to destroy the entire hive to be really safe from killer bees. If Israel took over the oil wells, we could get the oil wholesale or maybe even at cost.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 27, 2006 7:07:08 GMT -5
If Israel took over the oil wells, we could get the oil wholesale or maybe even at cost. This reinforces the stereotypical US persona. Get away from the oil and there would be less animosity between the world and the US (and the idea that the US is after world domination).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 27, 2006 9:43:41 GMT -5
Just because people have the right to vote and live in a democracy does not mean they have freedom. Rigged elections, duress, fear, all occur in "democratic" nations ...especially newly formd ones. And electing a "dictator / totalitarian regime" in fact makes the country a defacto non-democratic nation. A democratic nation has the ability to vote out (without fear of lives) a leader and elect another ....even Castro was elected , is that a democracy, do they have freedom? Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavez were all elected in free elections that were not rigged, were not conducted in duress, and which did not have any fear tactics used. The winners of the elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Venezuela won the old fashioned way - they won the hearts and minds of the people. All three of those countries still have democratic laws in place, and as it stands right now, the people of all three of those countries are free to remove from office whoever they chose. They simply choose not to. For now ... lets see what happens in the next elections in those countries. The problem with totalitarian regimes is they get elected "the old fashion way" but once in power they change the rules to suit them and even change how the next election is fought ... *cough* Hitler *cough*. Ehibit A of a man who won an election by winning the hearts and minds of a country .... I guess we should have left Germany alone as well? And I didn't say use nuclear warfare ... I said use the atom bomb again. How much did the fall-out from Hiroshima and Nagasaki affect neighbouring China? (The is a serious question by the way ... I have no idea ... but China is as close to Japan, maybe closer, than Tehran to its neighbour countries. As well as Israel to its neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 27, 2006 10:38:20 GMT -5
The only reason they "held back" was global pressure regarding how they were responding to a kidnapping of their soldiers. Imagine, how they would of responded if the world said publicly "Israel is right and what they are doing is the right response". They would have pummelled Hexbollah and Lebanon to the ground. But they didn't, did they? ~~~~~ The certainly did BC. What you saw on TV "was "tame" compared to how quickly civilians can be slaughtered by modern weapons. Read some of my previous posts. The Israeli's could have created a slaughter wave of bombing. Unlike WW2, today, you can start a precision bombing attack at one end of the city to force the population to get on the move....and then [sigh] kill them [/sigh]. Man has created remarkably efficient means....at killing man. The only way Arab-Israeli wars can be won is if there is a clear winner in the war .... in other words let them duke it out. Doesn't this contradict your belief that Israel won the war? You say that the only way an Arab-Israeli war can be won is if there is a clear winner... but in the paragraph before you admit that they held back, and didn't pummel Hezbollah into the ground. Since they didn't pummel them, they didn't get the clear-cut win, and as I have said before, a tie in Arab eyes is just as good as a win. Heck, even a loss can be considered a win by them, if they are still standing and able to fight another day. Which is the case. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunatly, that is true. I was not sure if I wanted to laugh or cry when I was watching an interview with a Hezboalah "leader". He was standing in ruble and was talking about how they defeated Israel and brought great destruction and death on it's evil head. Great destruction? It was like comparing a black eye to losing a two arms but yet, he was PROUD of whatever little damage they were able to inflict. And this is what worries me..... These fanatics do not measure life the same way you or I do. In fact, in no uncertain terms, they believe that any deaths caused by their hands is nothing more the martyrs.....and yet they parade dead childrens bodies when the propaganda suits them like it was some kind of prize. Worse still and sadly, their people buy into it. What I don't understand is how some Western people buy into this. Hezbollah are stating OUTRIGHT that if they cause civilian deaths, it's a chance to meet Allah and go as martyrs. Death is good if it's done by their hand. So let's see how that works. If rockets are deliberatly fired from civilian building to cause the DEATH of Jewish CIVILIANS, it's okay. If Jews bring down those buildings and happen to kill civilians, it's a war crime and a crime against humanity. Does it really have anything to do with right or wrong or does it have to do with anti-Sematism and anti-Americanism? Or are some people that stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 27, 2006 10:46:35 GMT -5
Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavez were all elected in free elections that were not rigged, were not conducted in duress, and which did not have any fear tactics used. The winners of the elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Venezuela won the old fashioned way - they won the hearts and minds of the people. All three of those countries still have democratic laws in place, and as it stands right now, the people of all three of those countries are free to remove from office whoever they chose. They simply choose not to. For now ... lets see what happens in the next elections in those countries. The problem with totalitarian regimes is they get elected "the old fashion way" but once in power they change the rules to suit them and even change how the next election is fought ... *cough* Hitler *cough*. Ehibit A of a man who won an election by winning the hearts and minds of a country .... I guess we should have left Germany alone as well? And I didn't say use nuclear warfare ... I said use the atom bomb again. How much did the fall-out from Hiroshima and Nagasaki affect neighbouring China? (The is a serious question by the way ... I have no idea ... but China is as close to Japan, maybe closer, than Tehran to its neighbour countries. As well as Israel to its neighbours. The Nazi example of "democracy" also came to my mind. Democracy is a funny thing. It only suits a population that is secular, diverse and well educated. It is not much of a democracy if all it is doing is selecting the favorite fundamantalist mullah of the day. TALIBAN NEWS
Today, Mullah BillyBob Gagne was elected on a platform of destroying Isreal AND the West and the same time. His platform had wider acceptance then Mullah Simone Smith who only advocates destruction of Israel and castration of Western males.
In other news, the latest burka fashions were out today and black is cool!
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 27, 2006 10:54:50 GMT -5
Just because people have the right to vote and live in a democracy does not mean they have freedom. Rigged elections, duress, fear, all occur in "democratic" nations ...especially newly formd ones. And electing a "dictator / totalitarian regime" in fact makes the country a defacto non-democratic nation. A democratic nation has the ability to vote out (without fear of lives) a leader and elect another ....even Castro was elected , is that a democracy, do they have freedom? Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavez were all elected in free elections that were not rigged, were not conducted in duress, and which did not have any fear tactics used. The winners of the elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Venezuela won the old fashioned way - they won the hearts and minds of the people. All three of those countries still have democratic laws in place, and as it stands right now, the people of all three of those countries are free to remove from office whoever they chose. They simply choose not to. Whomever they chose? Hardly...... They are NOT as free as you think BC. The Hezbollah have concentrated their "help" and their followers into a small region so they can better control them. South Beirut is Hezbollah country and EVERYBODY knows it. Not even the Lebanese army dared to enter. In fact, almost ALL the towns in the south are either Christian, Druid or Hezbollah even if the Hezbollah control the region. This separation affords the Hezbollah full control of the people in their own town.....AND THEIR VOTE. As for Chavez, we will see how "democratic" he is. And let's not forget, the communist party ALWAYS got elected "democratically".
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 27, 2006 11:19:33 GMT -5
there will be a day where israel will not listen to the concerns of the world and you will see the total annilihation of Syria, Iran and Lebanon. And more of the world as well Sadly, you and I are are going to see that within our lifetime. Probably within a decade.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 27, 2006 13:36:07 GMT -5
Hamas, Hezbollah and Chavez were all elected in free elections that were not rigged, were not conducted in duress, and which did not have any fear tactics used. The winners of the elections in Palestine, Lebanon and Venezuela won the old fashioned way - they won the hearts and minds of the people. All three of those countries still have democratic laws in place, and as it stands right now, the people of all three of those countries are free to remove from office whoever they chose. They simply choose not to. For now ... lets see what happens in the next elections in those countries. The problem with totalitarian regimes is they get elected "the old fashion way" but once in power they change the rules to suit them and even change how the next election is fought ... *cough* Hitler *cough*. Ehibit A of a man who won an election by winning the hearts and minds of a country .... I guess we should have left Germany alone as well? And I didn't say use nuclear warfare ... I said use the atom bomb again. How much did the fall-out from Hiroshima and Nagasaki affect neighbouring China? (The is a serious question by the way ... I have no idea ... but China is as close to Japan, maybe closer, than Tehran to its neighbour countries. As well as Israel to its neighbours. I'm in agreement with you Skilly. My biggest reservation is that Los Angeles will be targeted early in the Holocast. St. John's probably won't be a target for terrorists for at least another 30 minutes, maybe more. Newfoundland can only benefit from problems like global warming. Illegal immigrants from St. Pierre are not wading accross the Southern Border checkpoints. It will be a while before Kim's rockets can reach Carbonnear and even longer before he aim's the rockets there. Crips and Bloods aren't fighting mexican drug gangs, no drive by shootings. Daily problems in LA are very different from those in Newfoundland. Then again, Beverly Hills has eliminated all it's lobster poachers.
|
|