Possible Summer War
There is talk by the Israeli's about a possible conflict against Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, and 'non-state clients'.
Have we gone after the wrong nation over the past 3 years? Is this actually news or fearmongering?
Printable View
Possible Summer War
There is talk by the Israeli's about a possible conflict against Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, and 'non-state clients'.
Have we gone after the wrong nation over the past 3 years? Is this actually news or fearmongering?
The best way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war, as the old saying goes.
I'm pretty sure we've been in Iraq for more than 3 years.
And the statement released by the IDF was that they expected to be attacked from any/all of 5 sources: Iran; Syria; Hamas; Hizbollah; and/or Al Queda. Why would we 'go after them' for telling the world that their intelligence indicates that they face increased threats?
Iran has said it will wipe Israel off the map the first chance it gets and is developing nuclear weapons.
Syria doesn't have any maps with Israel on it.
Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and the end of any Jews living in Arab lands.
Hizbollah has gone further and suggested Jews in the West are fair game too.
And Al Queda has said anybody that doesn't subscibe to their whacko brand of Wahabism is doomed.
And you think Isreal is fearmongering and we should 'go after them'? You feeling okay, MM? :sick2:
Does MM even mean Israel? It isn't clear from his post.
Edit:
In answer to the question about going after the wrong target (by which I assume you mean Iraq) then yes we did. The real targets should have been Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia -- I agree they annoy with their "say one thing do another" policies; but a valid pretext for war would be difficult. Most of the "do another" component seems to be "private" and not government action.
Pakistan -- in cooperation with the current regime or in opposition to it?
So what ????? a map needs borders , borders need an agreement , a map without borders doesn't show countries does it:idea2:Quote:
Syria doesn't have any maps with Israel on it.
Over 30 countries don't recognise Israel , how many "countries" doesn't your government recognise ?
Now thats a question Seamus , or to make it better how about...in cooperation with factions of the current regime and factions of the opposition ....or with factions of the opposition and factions of the current regime .~;)Quote:
Pakistan -- in cooperation with the current regime or in opposition to it?
Will give them a hard time navigating around in the country once they invade.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Eh, well, don't know, we will see in the summer I guess.
Let's invade. Somebody. Uhm, Slovenia is pretty nice.
Seriously, Israel rocks.
Muslim extremists are the modern threat to global stability and peace. If there was no wacky fundamentalists, then we could pour a Tril or two into the dark heart.
Maybe someone could set up a para-mutual line on the next Israeli major combat episode?
No fair counting the latest "slap Gaza with a hellfire." Has to be significant.
In an absolute monarchy, where does private end and state begin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Difficult to say with Pakistan. With would probably have been best considering that they are a nuclear power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Seriously, Hamas rocks.
Isreali extremists are the modern threat to global stability and peace....
Oh wait did I spew up the wrong line of crap?
War...War never Changes.
Do you mean something like Don's pool of who was going to first break the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire last year, and how soon? Specify the details, then perhaps we might be able to get one going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Last year's betting pool was on who would be the first to break the ceasefire: Israel, the Lebanese government, or Hezbollah. Various time periods were offered: 24 hours, 72 hours, 7 days (IIRC). The incident had to be verified by the UN for the winning bet to count. In the end, no-one won, because no-one made a material bet on the winning result: Israel, 2 weeeks. No need for UN verification, because it was verified by all 3 sides - isn't it nice when warring agencies help us clarify our bets like so?
Actually, I find it scary when they all agree on the same thing -- ruins my norm of "they're [the other folks] evil" interpretation efforts if they all agree.....:devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
No way to settle bets, here. I was on one other site where there were earned credits [post count, contest winner, good site citizen award, etc.] for a site-store and you could purchase stuff with your credits -- so betting was possible and potentially lurcrative....of course, that site never had 10k+ members....:cheesy:
Damn , and I was going to write that bush is the modern threat ...or is that putin or mugabe ...maybe chavez evenQuote:
Seriously, Hamas rocks.
Isreali extremists are the modern threat to global stability and peace....
Oh wait did I spew up the wrong line of crap?
so many lines to choose from ....and no matter which way you put it the line is still spewing crap:2thumbsup:
Though to explore Divinu comment furtherIf you poured a trillion or two in the right direction the wacky fundamentalists would have less standing .Quote:
If there was no wacky fundamentalists, then we could pour a Tril or two into the dark heart.
But hey its better to throw a little bit of money and feed the wacky nutcases isn't it , help them grow and get bigger and nuttier , it must be better since that is the current policy isn't it:dizzy2:
Uhm, wherever the monarch isn't looking? You seem to imply that in an absolute monarchy, there is an all-powerful monarch king/sultan who controls everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'd recommend reading up on some of the european late medieval/Renaissance kings, like the french for example. They were all but all-powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Oh come on, do you really think that simply funding everything to the tune of $1T/per annum for a few decades will sweep the problems out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Some problems would lessen, to be sure, but:
a) weak economics/economic opportunity is not the sole basis of the problem
b) "pouring" money into endemically corrupt areas is more likely to pump up the economy of the Caymans rather than the ME -- I know you are aware of how current US funding for Iraq isn't exactly getting to the intended recipients intact
c) the aid itself would become a bone of contention and a source of anger
It will be interesting. Especially attacks on Iran. I wonder who will be target when Iranians strikes back. I think it will be
US ARMY into Iraq :)
America et al has recently killed far more innocents recently than every terrorist put together.
So Iran and others fund terrorists. Oh, the West only funds freedom fighters I wondered where the difference lay...
You want to make a really big difference? we should basically ignore these areas. Possibly put a satellite or two to broadcast free TV in to the people, and wait for the revolution.
We aren't always the ones in the right.
~:smoking:
i like slovenia far too much to see it embroiled in another war, they were lucky (prepared) the last time, i don't want to push that luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
It's a good point that when we step in we never go far enough and therefore should just stay out.
Iran is on the verge of revolusion and only external presure is keeping the regime together. The current situation in Palastine is not dissimilar in that our intereference actually helped to heighten the already present tensons.