What the outcome of the conflicts in the Middle East will be, I'm hopeful it will be something that has a less detrimental effect on the world than the current situation. I find it difficult to see how the US can support Israel militarily "forever", if things continue to develop like they are. Sure, it would be difficult for anyone to attack Israel, but it would also be difficult for Israel to attack others - if/when the US has to back down from exerting pressure through Israel in the region. One way to solve the conflict, would be a stronger Iran to shut up the aggressive rhetoric from Israel. Likewise, the destruction of Iran could stop their aggressiveness, but it would likely not stop the conflict in the Middle East - just entrench it further. So, yeah - without Israel things would probably be different. I do think the arab states and the rest of the world have evolved so much that they see the benefits of progressing together, instead of internal conflict. They do have regular regional meetings where they do meet consensus frequently, and that's promising for their future. There is no doubt that Syria supports Hezbollah in their fight against Israel, and there is no doubt that Hezbollah primarily is a resistance against Israel's influence - over Palestinians and towards Lebanon. A stronger Iran - which is the next obvious development after the US invaded Iraq - is something I think the rest of the world can live quite comfortably with. I don't see Iran as "an enemy of Europe" at all, and I think the same goes for Russia, China, Japan, Latin America and all of South Asia as well.
I found a great book on the exceptionally dysfunctional globalist directed relationship between the U.S. and Israel....... http://www.amazon.com/Facing-Codepe...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216063877&sr=1-2 Here is another really good one too....... http://www.amazon.com/Conquering-Co...=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216064143&sr=1-9 :eek:
I find it difficult to see how the US can support Israel militarily "forever", The US does not support Israel militarily now, $2.6 bln a year earmarked for the purchases of american weapons is a drop in the bucket for both Israel and the US, besides it does come with lots of strings attached. The US support is more important politically than militarily, Israel is quite used to fighting its own wars. I do think the arab states and the rest of the world have evolved so much that they see the benefits of progressing together, wishful thinking, examples of the opposite abound. Syria and Lebanon, Morocco and Algeria, Syria and the Gulf States, Fatah and Hamas, Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government...Power struggles, egos, thousands of years of bad blood are not going to disappear because of Israel's existence or the US invasion of Iraq. The sunni vs shia thing is not going away anytime soon either. a stronger Iran to shut up the aggressive rhetoric from Israel. Examples of this "aggressive rhetoric from Israel" besides their response to Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map (erase them from the pages of time if you will) would go a long way in helping you make your case. Without them your claims sound more like baseless smear. There must be a reason why none of your statements is backed up by facts, quotes or links. Just because you think something does not make it so. So far you've advanced quite a number of frankly insane theories (ie. Iraq,Iran,Pakistan, Afghanistan alliance etc) without even trying to back them up with facts or evidence.
Well, we know that Syria and Iran are pretty close in politics, and that Afghanistan and Pakistan have strong cultural ties. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein by the US, the old rivalry is melting and we can see how iranians are sympathetic to the iraqis, as are the syrians. Call it insane if you like, but it seems they are pretty knit together in their struggle against pressure exerted by exactly Israel and the US. The lebanese see themselves a bit different than the rest of the arabs historically (ancient seafaring traders), so they are probably not so inclined to see themselves as part of any common regional bloc, although defensively it might make a lot of sense. Of course this is speculation, but the tendency and possibility is there. The US public opinion does not support a super-long-term commitment to Iraq, and neither does military sense. The iraqis are already showing a lot of restraint in wanting to let themselves be dictated by the US in their internal politics, so there is no doubt that once the US is gone, there will be repercussions over time in the relationship with Iraq. All the time Syria and Iran are showing themselves sympathetic - and the US and Israel are threatening a similar fate that of the iraqis to Iran if they don't do as the US and Israel wants. So, that kind of puts them in the same boat - at least in terms of sentiment - and that's what populations ultimately will reflect in their politics. The iranians are of course also pretty sympathetic to the afghans and their being subdued and torn apart by conflict as well. It's a fair assessment that the next Afghan government will be more aligned to the region - both Pakistan and Iran. At least that makes sense to me.
Hahaha, Goebbels reincarnated? Bible: Love, Torah: Forgiveness, Koran: Anger. Ja, right, if raping three year olds is love and crushing babies at the rocks is forgiveness. Sure you can cut & paste some angry words from the Koran, but you can do the same with all the other religions. People were doing just that with the Talmud back in the years before the Holocaust. Let people define their own religion for them self. Europeans look silly to who, the US? Iraq turned out well, didn't it? It's hard for us to care about how you think we look when we're right (and know we look DAMN good) The problem is, Iran is a sovereign nation surrounded by nuclear powers like Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia and China. We're not their boss and we simply cannot tell them what they can or cannot do in their country because we certainly wouldn't allow them to dictate our policies - after all, we already have the weapons we're trying to prevent them from achieving. That in it self must seem quite hypocritical and unfair for the Iranians; what would we do if they where talking about invading our countries unless we disarm completely? On top of this, there's always the hypothetical chance that they are in fact simply doing it for more electricity and have no intentions of building bombs at all. The CERN particle accelerator might well provide new knowledge that can enable us to create even more destructive bombs than nukes. What would we do if they attack us for playing around with science? Diplomatic efforts is therefor not just the best thing we can do, it's the only thing we should do. If we strike them without them striking anybody else, just for the mere notion that they MIGHT become as powerful as ourself, all rules will be out, and we will be the wrongdoers in an objective eye. We're better than that. That's because he hardly knows anything about the issues.
we know that Syria and Iran are pretty close in politics, Right. Syria - Arabs, Iran - Persians, Syria - sunni, Iran - shia, Syria - secular Ba'th (socialist) government, Iran - religious theocracy. that Afghanistan and Pakistan have strong cultural ties. They do indeed but both are heavily dependent on american support, both have pro-American governments (Afghanistan actually has a puppet government), both are concerned with more important issues that the US and Israel - tribal war for Afghanistan and India for Pakistan. None has anything in common with Syria, Iran or Iraq, none gives a shit about Israel. I like your analysis though, it's beauty is in its simplicity and total absence of any kind of collaborating evidence. You hate the US and Israel so according to you the entire world must be uniting against the US and Israel just about now. Did I miss any other elements of your worldview?
Blah blah blah. People were afraid of Iraq - the "4th largest army in the world." They lasted a week.
Israel and the USA are the real terrorist.. There are two terrorist states in the world which have nuclear weapons, the USA and Israel. Both are clear and present dangers to the entire planet. The greater threat is Israel, because Israel can destroy Western civilization and possibly make the entire planet uninhabitable. This is not because Israel can detonate thousands of nukes over the entire planet. Rather it is because Israel can nuke Russia. If that were to happen (perhaps as a result of an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran) then Russia would launch a nuclear attack against the United States (both the US and Russia remain on hair-trigger nuclear alert), and the US would retaliate in the same way. This is perhaps the main reason why the US gives Israel everything it wants and never criticises it, except in the gentlest way possible. The only way out of this situation is either the destruction of Israel's nuclear weapons capability or the destruction (or at least dismantling) of Israel itelf. http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/israels_nukes.htm With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the world's fifth-largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such. Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation â in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact. Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow. The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence". Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent". Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
suppose some guy living in your hood has a big gun. one day he invades your neighbor's house and rapes and robs and killls some of them. he knows you have lots of jewelry in your house. then you say you're gonna go out and get your own gun, at which time he points his gun at you and says "if you do, i'm gonna blow your head off". what would you do?