You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The bar fight mentality
- Thread starter nettech963
- Start date
the entire Arab 'strategy' regarding Israel has been to keep the Palestinians as strictly displaced Palestinians.
that's why the right of return is still an issue 50 years later. Israel hoped it wouldn't be, but at the expense of the Palestinian people, it still is. the Arabs are gambling (without the Palestinians' permission) that eventually when they get their Palestinian state, all the hardship will have been worth it so they can go visit it.
and RE: rest of thread:
Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a pre-emptive war that it launched in 1967. It is not without blame. If Israel is right, it is because might makes right. Not on any moral basis.
as for this analogy:
the only way to do that is to use nuclear weapons. i.e, Japan in WW2. even though the firebombing of Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands, it took an awesome display of annihilation to get the Japanese to surrender. Even if the USA invaded and occupied Japan, without nuclear weapons and an unconditional surrender, Japan would have become the first Vietnam. so you're arguing for the use of nuclear weapons to destroy entire Arab cities in order to spare... a couple hundred Israelis? (that's how many would probably wind up being killed by terrorism over the course of the next few years).
(keeping in mind Arabs predominate all of North Africa, the Middle East, and have huge influence due to Islam in Persia, Turkey, and the Indian subcontinent as well as Southeast Asia).
Israel is also NOT facing destruction. none of the countries there are capable of 'wiping israel off the map'. if they did, they'd invite a real nuclear attack from Israel, one that could be justified as opposed to a pre-emptive attack outlined above.
i honestly don't know what's up with the Arab world. they could have taken Israel by manipulating it into favorable circumstances for a war long ago but all that hate rhetoric is mostly hot air (they all abandon it in personal interviews or actual policy). i agree with the camp that sees Islamic Extremism as simply a phenomenon that was bred in the 20th century to unite disaffected poor Muslim youth as 'armies' for these jarhead political leaders and dictators. (some we even helped set up). and what we have witnessed since 2001 is that they have spiralled out of control. wars will happen, not nuclear wars, but Lebanon-like conflicts until the situation comes to a natural equilibrium again in a few decades.
^ for an example, look at Pakistan as perhaps a cross-section to the larger events. President Musharraf was leading their intelligence service in the 1980s. he helped set up rival nationalist groups to fight each other in the southern parts of the country, so General Zia ul-Haq's dictatorship could stay in power. and then they helped the CIA arm the Afghans. after the USA wiped its hands of the affair and left Pakistan/Afghanistan standing in the '90s, Musharraf and co. orchestrated the arming of Islamic extremism (Taliban) to 1) take over afghanistan 2) quell the previously mentioned nationalist movements that went insane in Southern Pakistan. to this day Musharraf has been manipulating extremists and he is now at his end game. the birth of the Taliban and similar groups in SouthAsia has been PURELY political and has nothing to do with Islam or whatever kind of religion it is. who knows why Musharraf in particular has done what he has done... seperate issue. at least he's one dictator we can say the US did not put into power.
that's why the right of return is still an issue 50 years later. Israel hoped it wouldn't be, but at the expense of the Palestinian people, it still is. the Arabs are gambling (without the Palestinians' permission) that eventually when they get their Palestinian state, all the hardship will have been worth it so they can go visit it.
and RE: rest of thread:
Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a pre-emptive war that it launched in 1967. It is not without blame. If Israel is right, it is because might makes right. Not on any moral basis.
as for this analogy:
the only way to do that is to use nuclear weapons. i.e, Japan in WW2. even though the firebombing of Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands, it took an awesome display of annihilation to get the Japanese to surrender. Even if the USA invaded and occupied Japan, without nuclear weapons and an unconditional surrender, Japan would have become the first Vietnam. so you're arguing for the use of nuclear weapons to destroy entire Arab cities in order to spare... a couple hundred Israelis? (that's how many would probably wind up being killed by terrorism over the course of the next few years).
(keeping in mind Arabs predominate all of North Africa, the Middle East, and have huge influence due to Islam in Persia, Turkey, and the Indian subcontinent as well as Southeast Asia).
Israel is also NOT facing destruction. none of the countries there are capable of 'wiping israel off the map'. if they did, they'd invite a real nuclear attack from Israel, one that could be justified as opposed to a pre-emptive attack outlined above.
i honestly don't know what's up with the Arab world. they could have taken Israel by manipulating it into favorable circumstances for a war long ago but all that hate rhetoric is mostly hot air (they all abandon it in personal interviews or actual policy). i agree with the camp that sees Islamic Extremism as simply a phenomenon that was bred in the 20th century to unite disaffected poor Muslim youth as 'armies' for these jarhead political leaders and dictators. (some we even helped set up). and what we have witnessed since 2001 is that they have spiralled out of control. wars will happen, not nuclear wars, but Lebanon-like conflicts until the situation comes to a natural equilibrium again in a few decades.
^ for an example, look at Pakistan as perhaps a cross-section to the larger events. President Musharraf was leading their intelligence service in the 1980s. he helped set up rival nationalist groups to fight each other in the southern parts of the country, so General Zia ul-Haq's dictatorship could stay in power. and then they helped the CIA arm the Afghans. after the USA wiped its hands of the affair and left Pakistan/Afghanistan standing in the '90s, Musharraf and co. orchestrated the arming of Islamic extremism (Taliban) to 1) take over afghanistan 2) quell the previously mentioned nationalist movements that went insane in Southern Pakistan. to this day Musharraf has been manipulating extremists and he is now at his end game. the birth of the Taliban and similar groups in SouthAsia has been PURELY political and has nothing to do with Islam or whatever kind of religion it is. who knows why Musharraf in particular has done what he has done... seperate issue. at least he's one dictator we can say the US did not put into power.
IpwnNubs4444
New member
As well as one of the best friends of the US on the planet.
It could be said we slapped some sense into them.
Sad what happened to Israel. I completly agree with the sentiments of this post though.
It really annoys me that Israel got NOTHING out of this. They are no more secure then they were before. They don't even have the bodies of the Israel's that were taken hostage. When Israel took the cease fire without even that it sent up a red flag to me.
I think that Israel wasn't doing as well as we were being lead to believe and that they were looking for an 'out'. Otherwise they should have continued until the kidnapped people where given back to them.
It could be said we slapped some sense into them.
Sad what happened to Israel. I completly agree with the sentiments of this post though.
It really annoys me that Israel got NOTHING out of this. They are no more secure then they were before. They don't even have the bodies of the Israel's that were taken hostage. When Israel took the cease fire without even that it sent up a red flag to me.
I think that Israel wasn't doing as well as we were being lead to believe and that they were looking for an 'out'. Otherwise they should have continued until the kidnapped people where given back to them.