<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why should our people die, and our tax dollars be spent trying to "help" people who don't want to be helped in the first place? The Middle East doesn't like us! They don't want us there! If they want to continue to be ruled by crazy theocratical governments and despots then let them! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen to that. This is what I've been asking: what's wrong with isolationism? Why can't we let countries solve their own problems? What do we care? As long as they aren't going to nuke the world to pieces, who gives a damn? It's not like we really care for those people. Coalition could be using all that military money in helping people in lot worse conditions that in mid-east. The reason why US wants to help people in mid-east is of course oil, like stated before. The bad thing is that when president has personal intrests in oil, he's not going to leave the region like it was before. Even if it would be best for the people, it isn't best for the oil companies. Like it isn't best for the oil companies for scientists to research alternative ways of fueling peoples cars.
[QUOTE=marine01]The leaders are greedy, corrupt filth with no real concern for anything but their own hide.[/QUOTE]
Name a politician that isn't all that? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In response to the first part, every time Arab armies have tried to take on Israel the Arabs have walked out with a bloody nose and thousands of casualties. You think that the Arabs can just instantly replenish all the aircraft, tanks, soldiers and weaponry they lose each time they attack? It takes time to do this, and in a war of attrition, the Israelis have the money and technology to win. In a straight out fight, the Arabs can't win. They just can't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As evis said: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They only got to where they are because of our money and our support. We have sent trillions of dollars in aid, both directly in cash and also in military supplies. The only reason for their survival this long is because of our aid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. The arabs can't win. Not in the first attack, or the second. Or third. Or fifth. Or thirtieth. The isrealis would decimate them. But each time the israelis loose a little more, until one day the arabs are now a serious threat to the survival of israel. And then they will be nuked. It may be 50 years from the time we cease aid, it may be 400 years from that time. But the bottom line is, stopping aid will cause even more instability. What don't you get about that? I'm not suggesting that the moment we stop aid that israel will be crushed, I never have.
So how exactly are we helping the situation by cutting off aid, if that action will run the risk of a nuclear war?
As for them not having bombs, it was widely suspected that they had bombs as early as 1967, and that they were on nuclear alert during the 6 day war. So yeah, they probably did have nuclear weapons then. The arabs don't care, the leaders won't be hurt and if a bunch of soldiers get nuked that's pretty damn good PR.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those are the simple facts: No Arabic army has been able to defeat Israel.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When they were receiving supplies and aid from western countries, you're correct. If you suddenly cease that supply, it may be a different story.
That's like saying "south korea has NEVER been defeated by north korea, so we should pull out our troops!". Well DUH. The statement is true enough, south korea has never been defeated by north korea, but that was ONLY because we did send in troops. Take the troops away in the korean war, and south korea would have lost.
Take away the aid and support to israel, and in the long term, they may eventually be pushed to use nuclear weapons as a last resort. But who knows, maybe thats what some of you are hoping for.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 8 2003, 06:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 8 2003, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right. The arabs can't win. Not in the first attack, or the second. Or third. Or fifth. Or thirtieth. The isrealis would decimate them. But each time the israelis loose a little more, until one day the arabs are now a serious threat to the survival of israel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you think other nations can slowly weaken Israel with attacks and at the same time stay powerful themselves? This is something I don't understand. I don't really think that anyone would even attack Israel at all. Like stated before, it would be a suicide. So why do you keep on arguing that other countries would attack Israel when we already have agreed that Israel kicks some major arse? Do you think that some arab nation is just going to throw their whole armies against Israel, knowing that they will lose, just in order to make Israel a tad weaker? Me = confuzed. I don't know what you are on, but you should tell me where to get some <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yeah, they probably did have nuclear weapons then. The arabs don't care, the leaders won't be hurt and if a bunch of soldiers get nuked that's pretty damn good PR.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nukes are not anti-army weapons. They are anti-city weapons. It does concern the arab leader if their capital city gets vaporized while they sit in their shelters. 'nuff said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think that some arab nation is just going to throw their whole armies against Israel, knowing that they will lose, just in order to make Israel a tad weaker?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno, ask egypt, syria, and jordan in 1967, and 1973
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't really think that anyone would even attack Israel at all. Like stated before, it would be a suicide.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you're making a joke about suicide bombers or not. If you are, thats kinda funny <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Dread, you seem to think that these people think like you. They do not. They have a different culture, and things that would be beyond your reasoning make perfect sense to them. And vice versa.
The arabs have the desire, all they're looking for is oppertunity. While I have no doubt that israel can defend herself by herself, I disagree with cutting off trade because if israel ever gets pushed too far they may resort to nuclear weapons which is not good for anybody. The whole idea is to not let it get that far.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nukes are not anti-army weapons. They are anti-city weapons. It does concern the arab leader if their capital city gets vaporized while they sit in their shelters. 'nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you need to read up some more, because you're misinformed. The primary NATO defense versus warsaw pact units in the european theatre during the cold war were tactical nuclear weapons. Targets for strategic nuclear weapons were not limited to cities either. They could target anything of strategic importance, hense the term.
Well what changes in warfare once you get weapons of mass destruction?
We've gone from spears to swords and shields to muskets to rifles to nuclear weapons! Whoa! Back up there a minute. That's a huge jump.
Tactics were different on the field in "micromanagement" of soldiers with different weapons. When the enemy has nuclear weapons, the best tactic is to not fight.
Nuclear winter would result if a nuclear weapon was fired off right now. They might as well have weapon which will blow the planet earth into little bity pieces. It wouldn't make any difference as far as anyone is concerned, because we'd all be dead either way. Since America bombed Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have only been used to keep the peace. That might actually be a good thing as long as it stays in that context.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 8 2003, 08:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 8 2003, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually you need to read up some more, because you're misinformed. The primary NATO defense versus warsaw pact units in the european theatre during the cold war were tactical nuclear weapons. Targets for strategic nuclear weapons were not limited to cities either. They could target anything of strategic importance, hense the term. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say they couldn't be used against units. I mean that Israel would use them with full effeciency, meaning they would nuke cities, not armies. That is something that all arab leaders are afraid of. They can protect themselves from nukes but after they get out of their nuclear bunkers, there's nothing left to lead. That's a strong
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dunno, ask egypt, syria, and jordan in 1967, and 1973<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not very familiar with mid-eastern history, but when I did some hasty searches, these are the headlines that came up: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1967: Israel launches attack on neighbours Israeli forces have launched a pre-emptive attack on the country's neighbouring Arab states including the destruction of nearly 400 Egypt based military aircraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems like they can handle themselves pretty well. If Arabs absolutely have the need to destroy Israel, why would we want to interfere with that? If Iran would have attacked Iraq during Saddams reign, would we have cared(excluding oil related stuff)?
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Dec 8 2003, 08:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Dec 8 2003, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> What your saying doesn't take into account the situation at the time.? How many US and Japanese soldiers would die in the invasion of Japan?? My grandfather would have probably died.? The US government had the choice between losing hundreds of thousands of our soldiers OUR CITIZENS and the Japanese.? The US government decided it valued its own soldiers over the Japanese.? One protects one's own.? Japan was an imperialist state.? They bombed Pearl Harbor during peace talks, they invaded China and many Pacific islands, 1 in 3 POWs in Japan died comparatively to about 1 in 30 in Germany.? Japan had suicide fighter wings, soldiers suicided rather than let the US take them prisoner.? After the US occupation of Japan which took several years, Japan became a democratic state.? Japan is now one of the most prosperous nations in the world.? Though it was a terrible loss of life it was the right choice at the time to end the war quicly rather than having MORE people die over years of war.? The Japanese had killed innocents as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the nukes were the right thing to do to end the war. It was a horrible thing to actually do, however, and many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project swore off the device they helped to invent for the inhumanity it meant. The horror and death that we brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the reason why no other nuclear weapon has ever been used against an opponent. Richard Feynman, one of the scientists that worked in Los Alamos, spent years after the war in a depressed state, thinking that the world was going to end soon because of the device he helped build. He would look at construction projects and think "why are they bothering to build roads, humanity is going to die soon."
My point in referencing it was this: all of this trauma and death were necessary evils to bring about and end to the conflict. Right or wrong in humanity terms, it helped save future deaths. We are fighting a war against Al Qaida. Both sides are going to do what they feel is necessary to win the war. USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa... those are things they are using to fight their war. We will do the same. War is hell. In times of war you cannot claim that either side is doing the just and proper thing. Just as our killing of innocent children and women in Japan to end WW2... it's not right, it's horrible, but it brought and end to the conflict.
Now if you look at what they are fighting for, I have been trying to show that the problem they have with us is not because we are a free society practicing Christianity. They despise us for our infringements against their countries and our support of Israel, who does the same infringing. I say stop all of that and pull out of the conflict altogether, and try for a more peaceful route by asking Israel to just withdraw. It is my belief the current plan is seriously flawed and can't possibly work. It is too violent and will only bring about even more violence and bloodshed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've finally got it the best comeback ever against Evis. Many members of the KKK and other white supremecist groups are quite well off and have college degrees. Mayor's sons with college degrees and a taste for fine art can be racist but this does not mean they are right. Sane people can be evil. Just because someone reads fine literature and has some degrees does not mean we have to be tolerant of their anti ****, anti jew, anti Islam, anti black views. These same people who are quite intelligent lynch people because of their race and ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree 100%. I am not trying to say what they're doing is right. I personally don't believe violence will ever solve anything long-term when it's a war between cultures and people. I'm just trying to show that the popular strereotypes Americans have of Muslim activists is very very wrong. And to that end, I think I have made a clear case.
Our nation was founded by racists... the founding fathers were slave owners who mistreated African Americans and Native Americans. Thomas Jefferson was a blatant racist who considered blacks an inferior species, and referred to them as if they were animals he raised in his farms. This blatant racism across the country lasted until the 1960s. Racism, stereotypes, and prejudism are the reasons we have these misconceptions about other cultures, and they are the reasons for political uprisings and violence in return. Just like with African Americans in the past (and present,) there is a lot of racism in this country towards Arabs and Muslims. Reading some of the posts in this thread you will find ample evidence of it. I want to try and help bring about an end to the racism and incorrect stereotypes so that we can come to a peaceful resolution. Both sides must be willing to participate. It is only through understanding the position of our enemy that we can ever hope to bring about peace. War will never... ever... achieve this.
In terms of us going back to isolationism... I think that works for a peaceful western world. But I think we have the power and the ability to make the entire world a better place. It seems like most people fall into one of two categories on this issue: A) extreme violence aka fight them until they give up or are all dead and force our ways upon them, or B) extreme non-committal aka withdraw and let them kill each other and sort things out on their own. I dislike option A, as you can tell, as it only leads to more violence. Option B is like standing around watching your neighbor get raped because you don't want to risk getting yourself hurt. That's not the right thing to do. As arbitrators of peace, we should be looking for peaceful solutions. No peace plan has worked to date, and escalated violence will never work. We need to change tactics. I've proposed one such tactic... the obstacles to achieving it are great, but all of the worthwhile goals have challenges and risks associated with them. People may disagree with the approach, but hey... why not make suggestions upon it and critique why it may not work instead of just throwing it out the door? We're a bunch of geeks playing video games, so it's not like our opinions here are going to alter the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Dec 8 2003, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Dec 8 2003, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our nation was founded by racists... the founding fathers were slave owners who mistreated African Americans and Native Americans. Thomas Jefferson was a blatant racist who considered blacks an inferior species, and referred to them as if they were animals he raised in his farms. This blatant racism across the country lasted until the 1960s. Racism, stereotypes, and prejudism are the reasons we have these misconceptions about other cultures, and they are the reasons for political uprisings and violence in return. Just like with African Americans in the past (and present,) there is a lot of racism in this country towards Arabs and Muslims. Reading some of the posts in this thread you will find ample evidence of it. I want to try and help bring about an end to the racism and incorrect stereotypes so that we can come to a peaceful resolution. Both sides must be willing to participate. It is only through understanding the position of our enemy that we can ever hope to bring about peace. War will never... ever... achieve this.
[edit] Avoid double-post [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't reply to this whole thing, but just a clarification: The founder fathers were racist against blacks, no doubt. Not so much Indians. Thomas Jefferson said something like "Whereas Blacks are biologically inferior, the inferirority of the indians is a result of pure circumstance. With help, they can be brought up to speed."
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can't reply to this whole thing, but just a clarification: The founder fathers were racist against blacks, no doubt. Not so much Indians. Thomas Jefferson said something like "Whereas Blacks are biologically inferior, the inferirority of the indians is a result of pure circumstance. With help, they can be brought up to speed."
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> More so they mistreated the Native Americans. Manifest Destiny meant the Natives were going to have to be pushed out to make way for the white people, and that meant some brutal wars. Even so, as you pointed out Jefferson said they were inferior, even if it was just by circumstance. That's racist.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Dec 8 2003, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Dec 8 2003, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Dec 8 2003, 08:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Dec 8 2003, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> What your saying doesn't take into account the situation at the time.? How many US and Japanese soldiers would die in the invasion of Japan?? My grandfather would have probably died.? The US government had the choice between losing hundreds of thousands of our soldiers OUR CITIZENS and the Japanese.? The US government decided it valued its own soldiers over the Japanese.? One protects one's own.? Japan was an imperialist state.? They bombed Pearl Harbor during peace talks, they invaded China and many Pacific islands, 1 in 3 POWs in Japan died comparatively to about 1 in 30 in Germany.? Japan had suicide fighter wings, soldiers suicided rather than let the US take them prisoner.? After the US occupation of Japan which took several years, Japan became a democratic state.? Japan is now one of the most prosperous nations in the world.? Though it was a terrible loss of life it was the right choice at the time to end the war quicly rather than having MORE people die over years of war.? The Japanese had killed innocents as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the nukes were the right thing to do to end the war. It was a horrible thing to actually do, however, and many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project swore off the device they helped to invent for the inhumanity it meant. The horror and death that we brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the reason why no other nuclear weapon has ever been used against an opponent. Richard Feynman, one of the scientists that worked in Los Alamos, spent years after the war in a depressed state, thinking that the world was going to end soon because of the device he helped build. He would look at construction projects and think "why are they bothering to build roads, humanity is going to die soon."
My point in referencing it was this: all of this trauma and death were necessary evils to bring about and end to the conflict. Right or wrong in humanity terms, it helped save future deaths. We are fighting a war against Al Qaida. Both sides are going to do what they feel is necessary to win the war. USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa... those are things they are using to fight their war. We will do the same. War is hell. In times of war you cannot claim that either side is doing the just and proper thing. Just as our killing of innocent children and women in Japan to end WW2... it's not right, it's horrible, but it brought and end to the conflict.
Now if you look at what they are fighting for, I have been trying to show that the problem they have with us is not because we are a free society practicing Christianity. They despise us for our infringements against their countries and our support of Israel, who does the same infringing. I say stop all of that and pull out of the conflict altogether, and try for a more peaceful route by asking Israel to just withdraw. It is my belief the current plan is seriously flawed and can't possibly work. It is too violent and will only bring about even more violence and bloodshed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've finally got it the best comeback ever against Evis. Many members of the KKK and other white supremecist groups are quite well off and have college degrees. Mayor's sons with college degrees and a taste for fine art can be racist but this does not mean they are right. Sane people can be evil. Just because someone reads fine literature and has some degrees does not mean we have to be tolerant of their anti ****, anti jew, anti Islam, anti black views. These same people who are quite intelligent lynch people because of their race and ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree 100%. I am not trying to say what they're doing is right. I personally don't believe violence will ever solve anything long-term when it's a war between cultures and people. I'm just trying to show that the popular strereotypes Americans have of Muslim activists is very very wrong. And to that end, I think I have made a clear case.
Our nation was founded by racists... the founding fathers were slave owners who mistreated African Americans and Native Americans. Thomas Jefferson was a blatant racist who considered blacks an inferior species, and referred to them as if they were animals he raised in his farms. This blatant racism across the country lasted until the 1960s. Racism, stereotypes, and prejudism are the reasons we have these misconceptions about other cultures, and they are the reasons for political uprisings and violence in return. Just like with African Americans in the past (and present,) there is a lot of racism in this country towards Arabs and Muslims. Reading some of the posts in this thread you will find ample evidence of it. I want to try and help bring about an end to the racism and incorrect stereotypes so that we can come to a peaceful resolution. Both sides must be willing to participate. It is only through understanding the position of our enemy that we can ever hope to bring about peace. War will never... ever... achieve this.
In terms of us going back to isolationism... I think that works for a peaceful western world. But I think we have the power and the ability to make the entire world a better place. It seems like most people fall into one of two categories on this issue: A) extreme violence aka fight them until they give up or are all dead and force our ways upon them, or B) extreme non-committal aka withdraw and let them kill each other and sort things out on their own. I dislike option A, as you can tell, as it only leads to more violence. Option B is like standing around watching your neighbor get raped because you don't want to risk getting yourself hurt. That's not the right thing to do. As arbitrators of peace, we should be looking for peaceful solutions. No peace plan has worked to date, and escalated violence will never work. We need to change tactics. I've proposed one such tactic... the obstacles to achieving it are great, but all of the worthwhile goals have challenges and risks associated with them. People may disagree with the approach, but hey... why not make suggestions upon it and critique why it may not work instead of just throwing it out the door? We're a bunch of geeks playing video games, so it's not like our opinions here are going to alter the world.
[edit] Avoid double-post [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Though I disagree with your tactic and thoughts about S 11 you finally mad a post that makes sense to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> mean that Israel would use them with full effeciency, meaning they would nuke cities, not armies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, who is to say that the most efficient use of nuclear weapons is against cities? What experience do you have the matter? Secondly, what has made you come to the conclusion that the israelis would nuke cities, not armies? What did you base this on? Again, you should probably not assume when it comes to something you know little about. Giving your opinion is fine: "I would think they would nuke cities, not the enemy military, because it kills population and discourages the enemy" would be a good statement to make. Compare that to the statement you actually made. See the difference? One will take what you say more seriously when you word it appropriately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Arabs absolutely have the need to destroy Israel, why would we want to interfere with that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If israel absolutely has the need to destroy the surrounding arab states before it can feel safe, why would we want to interfere with that? You see how that statement doesn't work? Thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not very familiar with mid-eastern history, but when I did some hasty searches, these are the headlines that came up:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll enlighten you then. On may 14, 1967, the Egyptian president Gamal Nasser demanded the withdrawl of the UN force from the sinai peninsula, which was established there 10 years earlier as a buffer zone as to prevent conflict. The UN backs down (once again, waviering when it needs to stand strong) and withdrawls the troops. On may 15th, three egyptian army divisions roll into the Sinai. On may 18th, Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran. On May 20th, Syria announces that it is ready to repulse any aggression and in fact, act in "liberation" to wipe out Israel. May 27th, Nassar announces his intentions of the destruction of Israel. Jordan announced a pact with Egypt to fight if they fight. Egyptian media announces that it is ready to cut Israel in two. May 31st, Iraqi president Rahman Aref announces "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4th, Iraq joined Nasser in his military alliance to wipe israel out. June 5: Israel strikes military targets in Egypt in a spoiling attack. June 10: Israel accepts the UN cease fire demands.
Gee, the Israelis are "clearly" the agressors aren't they?
Where was the UN when Egypt was pouring into the Sinai? Where was the crys of outrage when Syrian troops were shelling israeli villagers for years from the golan heights?
**** hypocrites. I never said israel was without blame or perfect, they've done some crappy stuff too, but when people cry in outrage over what israel does, yet blatently ignores (or excuses) the surrounding countries when it does similar things if not worse atrocities, it frankly pisses me off.
Most people there just want to be left alone and I respect them. And that goes for israelis, palestinians, arabs, you name it. Quite frankly I think the israelis have shown more restraint than I ever would.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seems like they can handle themselves pretty well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With western backing and aid, certainly. Without? Sure, for a time. But how long will it last, when everyone is out to get you? Not forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Iran would have attacked Iraq during Saddams reign, would we have cared(excluding oil related stuff)? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have cared. I can't speak for the people in power. Best I can do is try and vote for the lesser of the two evils.
I agree that being isolationist is a ideallists dream- even if we could, we shouldn't, as evis said. And I agree with going for peace, but there's only so much many times you can ask 2 children politely to stop fighting. Meanwhile people die. So sometimes you gotta stop the car.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Dec 8 2003, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Dec 8 2003, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though I disagree with your tactic and thoughts about S 11 you finally mad a post that makes sense to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whew. I'm very glad to be making some sense. It's taken a lot of effort and a tremendous amount of flame, but hey... my flame retardant underoos have finally paid off. As you'll notice, I am trying to avoid 9/11... I don't think people are ready yet to discuss it abstractly and unemotionally. There is still too much pain and anger surrounding it. That's my fault for sticking a knife in an open wound.
So in terms of a long-term Middle East tactic, how would you change it?
[edit]
In regards to Iran and Iraq... Iran did attack Iraq. Albeit it was actually a counter-attack to Iraq's initial move. Iraq wanted to regain control of some lost territory, and invaded Iran. Iran pushed them out. Iraq went back home with their tails between their legs... but Iran wasn't satisfied with just a push back and cease fire. They were **** off and went in for the kill, invading Iraq. This was the start of a massively brutal 8-year war between the two from 1980 to 1988. Millions died, chemical and biological weapons, Saddam killed 60,000 Kurds, you name it. It also led to our support of Iraq and Saddam's military build-up. We supported Saddam and Iraq because we hated Iran more, and we didn't want Iran to take over Iraq. Our support lasted, of course, until the 2nd of August, 1990.
I would recognize palestine as a state, pull out of their areas and cease bulldozing.
And if one suicide bomb occurs after that, then Israel can now officially declare war. I wouldn't stop until a palestinian government was put in place that really does want peace. A government that polices its own damn country to arrest the extremists. We know arafat doesn't- he may or may not condone it, but he sure doesn't work too hard to stop it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We supported Saddam and Iraq because we hated Iran more, and we didn't want Iran to take over Iraq. Our support lasted, of course, until the 2nd of August, 1990.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You got it. Same ole story in afganistan.
My thoughts? Stop supplying countries with weapons. That went out with the cold war (both russia and the US did that). If we want to help a country like Iraq in that situation, send in US troops. If the citizens don't want us to do that, then don't help. Aid is fine, but don't ARM a country. This isn't the cold war- every time we've armed a country, it's bitten us in the butt. Starting in freaking russia WWII.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 8 2003, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 8 2003, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My thoughts? Stop supplying countries with weapons. That went out with the cold war (both russia and the US did that). If we want to help a country like Iraq in that situation, send in US troops. If the citizens don't want us to do that, then don't help. Aid is fine, but don't ARM a country. This isn't the cold war- every time we've armed a country, it's bitten us in the butt. Starting in freaking russia WWII. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not just weapons, but material to make weapons, too... iron, steel, etc. Stop all trade to warring nations. Recall WW1. The US declared itself a neutral country, and we actively traded with <b>both</b> Allies and Axis in accordance with international law. We did not supply arms, as both sides threatened to sink any such vessel. But we gladly supplied everything they would need to make weapons. It wasn't until the British blockade of the North Sea that American merchants decided it was too expensive and risky to trade with Germany any longer.
Of course, cutting off all trade may not work, either... witness our oil embargo of Japan in the summer of 1941. Japan is an island, they were 100% dependent on foreign oil to power their military. That move forced the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor a few months later. We can't re-write history, and "what if" scenarios are pure speculation, but in that case cutting off a nation's supplies was the decisive move that resulted in all-out war.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 8 2003, 04:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 8 2003, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> With western backing and aid, certainly. Without? Sure, for a time. But how long will it last, when everyone is out to get you? Not forever. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's absolutely correct, if the Arab countries were to constantly throw everything they had at Israel, and Israel had no support from us, it would be a disaster. We all know no other country would give Israel the least bit of help, Evis you say the Jews/Zionists have all this power, but they seem to only have one country working to help them, grant it were a good country to have on your side, but I thought I would mention that.
You keep chipping little bits off a big stone, what happens? Nuclear war is what happens.
As to the question posed early something like "why didn't we chose to support the Palestinians", because supporting them over Israel would have been a ridiculously stupid mistake. They have never shown the least bit of hope for succeeding, and you know unlike Israel they would have had no restraint, slaughtering all the Jews in the area, is that the kind of thing you want us to support? Israel is, IMO the only stable country there.
As for moving the Israelis to America, a better solution would be to move the Palestinians (into the ocean) Into the neighboring Arab countries, they seem so eager to help their kin, why not give them the best help of all and move them out, where they can live in peace. That can't happen because a small group of extremists control the area.
Israel is the only peaceful country in the area they way I see it, they have been attacked again and again, yet they use considerable restraint, which I have a feeling we help keep it that way, another reason not to disconnect from Israel. They easily could destroy Palestine, perhaps the entire middle east, and in cold blunt military terms it makes more sense then "moving to America."
Wow... I go to sleep, then to school and look what happens. I miss a page. I'll add my opinions of the arguments I heard (I'm going from memory, here, so if I get something wrong correct me.)
IMO, Israel nuking a Middle Eastern country would be <b>good</b> for the leaders there (bad for the people, though.) They then can point to the event and rant and rave about how dangerous Israel is to world peace, how genocidal, etc. Popular opinion agrees with them (In Europe, Israel is rated as the #1 Threat to World Peace), so politicians come out of the woodwork declaring that Something Should be Done. Then you get all sorts of UN backing, funding, whatever to get rid of Israel's nuclear capabilities, and anything they aren't 'mature' enough to handle. Knowing some people, this may be a complete disarmament.
Israel, if they know what's good for them, would never do this. They know who's angling for their death, and they know just how close they are. So people push for a resolution to attack Israel. Israel panics/counter-attacks/whatever and Nukes go flying. Messy.
To compound the problem, most of the other Middle Eastern nations want nukes very badly. I don't remember how close Iran is off the top of my head, but IIRC they got pretty close. Once any nation there gets one, everything changes.
If a country besides Israel has even one, Israel has to step very carefully. They can't go dropping nukes willy-nilly, because it might cause retaliation from the nation.
If you want my opinion on how Israel would stand against the other nations there, I feel they can't win the war, no matter how good their army is. Any major offensive will draw sharp critisism from the West, while other nations would be seen as the victims. If the other nations can't win in a stand up fight, they just continue suppling suicide bombers/guns/people until Israel is overwhelmed. The way I see it, Israel will run out of citizens far before the other countries run out of 'matrys'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Burncycle @ Dec 8 2003, 04:42 PM) With western backing and aid, certainly. Without? Sure, for a time. But how long will it last, when everyone is out to get you? Not forever.
He's absolutely correct, if the Arab countries were to constantly throw everything they had at Israel, and Israel had no support from us, it would be a disaster. We all know no other country would give Israel the least bit of help, Evis you say the Jews/Zionists have all this power, but they seem to only have one country working to help them, grant it were a good country to have on your side, but I thought I would mention that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I miss something? Are the Jewish people now suddenly a bunch of poor, stupid humans? Hell no! Israel is a very wealthy state filled with a lot of wealthy people. They don't need our aid.
Looking back at 1967 and 1973, in each occurance the military forces of the surrounding Arab countries were decimated. They walked out of those two conflicts with their military infrastructure in ruins. Israel was just too strong. In both wars, no Arabic army came close to actually threatening Israel itself, and as such, Israel never contemplated using nukes that may or may not have existed then. They didn't need to.
Now let's just break the bonds of reality and assume that a Saudi-Syrian-Egyptian-Iraqi-Iranian force actually managed to defeat Israel's military might on the battlefield tommorow, providing of course that all these countries put aside the fact that they dislike one another. Arabic armies stand poised to strike at the heart of Israel. What happens? The nukes start flying. Tactical nukes destroy the Arabic armed forces. Larger warheads hit major population centres across the Middle East. Israel saves itself, in the process destroying just about the whole Middle East. The Arab leaders might only care for personal power. They might only care for their palaces. But nukes can take away exactly that. Nukes can turn them from omnipitant despots to nothing. And understand that at least one Jewish Jericho MRBM is targetted on Mecca and another on Medina.
The Arabic leaders know all that which I just wrote. They know that there can be no victory against Israel. In 1967 and 1973 they had a chance, because they didn't know for sure if Israel had nukes and they believed their military forces would be able to defeat those of the Israelis. Now though, it's a lose-lose situation. They can't defeat Israel's military power, and even if they did, their entire kingdoms would be destroyed along with the most important sites of their religion, Mecca and Medina. Net result: loss of personal power, wealth, religion and Israel still alive and very much kicking.
Nukes don't cost much to maintain. Israel is fully aware that since it is now a recognised major nuclear power, it is effectively immune to attack and invasion. If we were to withdraw all our aid funding to Israel tommorow, they might have to make some cutbacks to their military (though I highly doubt it given Israel's own substantial wealth), but they still have 200 odd nuclear weapons, enough to stop any Arab leader from even considering an invasion.
This isn't even Mutually Assured Destruction; it's Arabic Assured Destruction. Once again, the Arabs know this. And that's why all they'll do is send some funding to terrorist groups and Palestinian suicide bombers, just like they do now. If the US was to withdraw tommorow, nothing would change.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Dec 8 2003, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 8 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This isn't even Mutually Assured Destruction; it's Arabic Assured Destruction. Once again, the Arabs know this. And that's why all they'll do is send some funding to terrorist groups and Palestinian suicide bombers, just like they do now. If the US was to withdraw tommorow, nothing would change. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not so sure, like I said before we are Israel’s only real ally, if we were to cut them off from us they have no one left to appease. There much regarded restraint with the Palestinians might slip into a military conquest. I have no doubt that we keep Israel in check in some ways, naturally if they were to invade Palestine and take land to keep, push the people out, they would lose our support. If they had already lost that they really, as you say, have little to fear from the Arabs, who I still think could wear them down over time to the point where they would have to use nuclear weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Dec 8 2003, 08:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Dec 8 2003, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not so sure, like I said before we are Israel’s only real ally, if we were to cut them off from us they have no one left to appease. There much regarded restraint with the Palestinians might slip into a military conquest. I have no doubt that we keep Israel in check in some ways, naturally if they were to invade Palestine and take land to keep, push the people out, they would lose our support. If they had already lost that they really, as you say, have little to fear from the Arabs, who I still think could wear them down over time to the point where they would have to use nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Israel doesn't hold back restraint for fear of retaliation from the US. They know that the US will only "strongly condemn" their actions, and would never think about taking military action against Israel.
There is no such thing as "invade Palestine" since there is no Palestine. Israel has already taken over all the land alloted to the Palestinians, and they keep reaching for more. The great big push-out started during WW2 when the Jews fled Europe and tried to cram into the tiny little British Mandate for Palestine. I am incredulous towards anyone that says Israel is the best thing that's ever happened to the Middle East. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. After WW1, the League of Nations handed the Brits control over the area we know today as Israel. Until a country was formed, it was just known as The Palestine Mandate. The Brits decided to allow the Zionists to form a country there instead of giving it to the Palestinians so the Zionists could fulfill their goal of having an independent country, Israel. Note that the Brits had already promised this land to the Palestinians prior to this. It wasn't just a nice gift, this came about because of something the Zionists gave in return. The Palestinians of course protested, and tried to resist. 80+ years later people are still fighting and dying because of that colossal mistake. Without Britain giving the land over to the Zionists, we'd have none of this Middle East violence against Jews or against the US. No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no attacks against American interests. No one can say that we or the Middle East are better off because of how Israel came into being and our choice of supporting them all these years.
I fail to see how sending more aid and wishing for peace is going to bring about any. All that does is help to make sure the violence continues indefinitely. Arabs are backed by oil, and the Israelis are backed by us. I guess we just wait until one or the other runs out of cash. Until then, let the violence continue.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Dec 8 2003, 08:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Dec 8 2003, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Dec 8 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can't reply to this whole thing, but just a clarification: The founder fathers were racist against blacks, no doubt. Not so much Indians. Thomas Jefferson said something like "Whereas Blacks are biologically inferior, the inferirority of the indians is a result of pure circumstance. With help, they can be brought up to speed."
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> More so they mistreated the Native Americans. Manifest Destiny meant the Natives were going to have to be pushed out to make way for the white people, and that meant some brutal wars. Even so, as you pointed out Jefferson said they were inferior, even if it was just by circumstance. That's racist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to nitpick, but theres a difference between 'Fouding Fathers' and late 19th Century Fathers. The early American government assumed that the Native Americans would realize how kickin' rad Western Civ was and hope on board! Thats why there were many movements to 'westernize' Native Americans Dartmouth College, an example). When Native Americans said "We're cool, thanks anyway." Americans became **** off. Their egos were so high that when their way of life was rejected by Native Americans, it turned to anger. A very primitive, militant version of "America: Love it or Leave it".
Jefferson's statement was racist, but not against native americans. What is racist in the following statement? "Indians are stupid cause of luck. Blacks are stupid because of race." Obviously, its the attachment of race to black intellect, not the attachment of luck to Indian intellect.
Holy crap, I'm debating Evis on something other than Bush/Israel/Iraq :-) Yay
Oh- I agree the treatment of native americans was heinous. I am in now way apologizing for the horrors of Manifest destiny, just trying to dispell "Founders = Indian Racists" idea.
Oh #2, and Ryo: Israel runs a HUGE defeict government. It can't afford to support itself, hence US aid.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Dec 8 2003, 10:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Dec 8 2003, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Dec 8 2003, 08:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Dec 8 2003, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not so sure, like I said before we are Israel’s only real ally, if we were to cut them off from us they have no one left to appease. There much regarded restraint with the Palestinians might slip into a military conquest. I have no doubt that we keep Israel in check in some ways, naturally if they were to invade Palestine and take land to keep, push the people out, they would lose our support. If they had already lost that they really, as you say, have little to fear from the Arabs, who I still think could wear them down over time to the point where they would have to use nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Israel doesn't hold back restraint for fear of retaliation from the US. They know that the US will only "strongly condemn" their actions, and would never think about taking military action against Israel.
There is no such thing as "invade Palestine" since there is no Palestine. Israel has already taken over all the land alloted to the Palestinians, and they keep reaching for more. The great big push-out started during WW2 when the Jews fled Europe and tried to cram into the tiny little British Mandate for Palestine. I am incredulous towards anyone that says Israel is the best thing that's ever happened to the Middle East. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. After WW1, the League of Nations handed the Brits control over the area we know today as Israel. Until a country was formed, it was just known as The Palestine Mandate. The Brits decided to allow the Zionists to form a country there instead of giving it to the Palestinians so the Zionists could fulfill their goal of having an independent country, Israel. Note that the Brits had already promised this land to the Palestinians prior to this. It wasn't just a nice gift, this came about because of something the Zionists gave in return. The Palestinians of course protested, and tried to resist. 80+ years later people are still fighting and dying because of that colossal mistake. Without Britain giving the land over to the Zionists, we'd have none of this Middle East violence against Jews or against the US. No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no attacks against American interests. No one can say that we or the Middle East are better off because of how Israel came into being and our choice of supporting them all these years.
I fail to see how sending more aid and wishing for peace is going to bring about any. All that does is help to make sure the violence continues indefinitely. Arabs are backed by oil, and the Israelis are backed by us. I guess we just wait until one or the other runs out of cash. Until then, let the violence continue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It quite possibly was a bad move to do that.... However there is nothing we can do about what happened 80+ years ago. We can only change <i>now</i>. I think it would be better to talk about what we should do with the choices they made in the past and try and make something out of the mess.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh #2, and Ryo: Israel runs a HUGE defeict government. It can't afford to support itself, hence US aid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the US runs a huge defeict government as well. Yet it maintains the world's most powerful military force.
The thing is, say Israel lost the aid funding and had to cut back on their military. It wouldn't make a lick of differance. The nukes remain their silos, ready to launch if Israel gets in trouble. Look at Russia; their army is in tatters, yet no-one's invading them because Russia has a heap of nukes. Same with Israel. The Arabs won't invade because even if Israel's army was cut back they'd stand a poor chance of actually winning and there's still the nukes to consider.
Also there's the fact that most of the Middle Eastern nations hate each other. Saudi Arabia doesn't get along with many people due to the large US pressence in their nation, Iran hates everyone, Iraq is no longer even remotely a threat to anyone except the poor US soldiers stationed there, Syria is more concerned with avoiding being invaded by the US and Egypt isn't interested in another war with Israel. Turn the clock back and you can see Middle Eastern alliances, but these days? Forget it. You'd need something massive, like Israel bombing Mecca, to unite the Middle East against Israel.
Its in the US's best interest to have a friendly, powerful democracy in that region. Thats why Iraq is being cultivated: same role as Israel with Muslim cultural benefits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its in the US's best interest to have a friendly, powerful democracy in that region. Thats why Iraq is being cultivated: same role as Israel with Muslim cultural benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Seriously, why? Our pressense in the Middle East is causing quite a few problems, and what exactly are the benefits? As I have said earlier, I see no reason why we shouldn't just pull out and let the people there do whatever the hell they want. There are plenty of people back home who need some of the benefits of democracy: like education, health care and social security.
3 letters, Ryo: oil. Without control over it, our nation will be at the mercy of these countries which can dictate the price of oil by simply shutting down production for a week or two. Wall Street was on pins and needles when this latest Iraq war flared up, as they were anticipating its effect on oil prices. We had to get in there really quickly and make sure production was not halted less we wished to create a shortage and extreme price inflation. All the same, production did take a dip and we got hit with a price hike.
The US will run out of its own oil in the next decade, assuming the present extraction rate and no future miracle discovery. If we choose to remain dependent on a non-renewable fossil fuel, we will continue to have to trade with foreign countries to get it. Americans consume 25% of all the oil output each year. In terms of size of proven oil reserves, you've got the following (in order:) Saudia Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran. After the Middle East, the next big thing is the Caspian Sea area, which supposedly contains some 200 billion barrels. Just it's harder to extract since the terrain is more rugged and (till now) politcally unfeasible. A pipeline that leads from the Caspian area (Turkmenistan) across... tada... Afghanistan down to Pakistan is presently in the works. The US company known as Unocal owns the largest stake in this pipeline. They wanted to build one for years, but the darned Taliban kept messing with their plans.
For me, the answer to this problem about oil is simple: remove the dependency altogether! Start spending some serious cash on finding viable alternatives that are renewable. We put together the greatest minds on the planet to develop the nuclear weapon in just a few years' time. We could do the same to solve this problem. Except no one seems to really want to do that. Definitely won't ever happen with our current administration. When will we realize that the oil crash is coming?
The thing is though, whilst it's all very well to say "We're promoting democracy" these people don't want it. They really don't like us and want no truck with American democracy. So why are we forcing it down their throats? All it's doing is driving people away from democracy and fueling the rhetoric of the terrorists.
Secondly, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwaiit control most of the world's oil supply. Now say they said "Oh, we're cutting it off". Their economies would crash terribly. Their only real choice is to keep selling the oil they have because their economies have grown to the point where oil is all they have. The Middle East is going to seriously fall apart in around 2030 - 2040 when the oil runs out. My point here is that I believe that if we did pull out, the oil would keep flowing. I accept your point though and I can understand why we maintain a pressence there, still the logic of promoting democracy in the region escapes me.
However, I fully back up greatly increased spending on alternate fuels. Being in the Middle East is hurting Western nations, both by economic and military costs, plus the diplomatic problems caused by actions such as the Iraq war. If we can break our dependance on oil, and a seriously think that we can (sooner or later we'll have to), we can leave the whole region alone and let them do whatever the hell they want. The sooner we can do that, the better.
We're "forcing it down their throats" because it's better than what they've got now. Better? Why Burn? Well because ryo, before they don't have a choice, now they do. That's an upgrade. If you feel it is, whatever.
Setting up a democracy isn't bad. Cramming western values down their throats is what we're giving them that they DON'T need.
You can't say it's not democracy they don't want- that they don't want a choice. It's the western CULTURE they don't want. And there's nothing that says you have to have western culture to have a democracy.
The whole point of the democracy is a party system that has checks and balances, Ryo if they want a conservative muslim leader, they can simply elect the guy. You seem to think they'll be forced next to elect democrats/republicans! There are communist parties, socialist parties, green parties, all kinds. To americans, these are 3rd parties and hardly get any votes... because most of the people fall into the repub/democrat region. In the middle east, it may be a different story.
I may disagree with you on the military, but in my opinion, these people hate israel so much that nukes are not as big a deterrent as you believe, and that israels military, even if they DON'T cut down, won't be able to stop the surrounding countries forever. For a long time maybe, but not forever by itself.
You seriously think that if after the first Iraqi election, the winner was a fanatical cleric who ran on a campaign of "Kick the imperialist US pigs out of Iraq", the US would let him rule?! No frigging way. The US would claim the election was rigged, or say that it violated the US designed constitution.
Nukes have stopped India and Pakistan from going to war. Those guys loathe one another. Nukes stopped the USSR and the USA from going to war. No love lost between them. Nukes stopped, and are still stopping, China and Russia from going to war. Those guys don't get along very well. What makes you think that nukes won't hold the Arabs at bay? It's not a question of desire, or motives. It's simply that no Arabic leader wants to see everything he has turned into radioactive vapour.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Dec 9 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 9 2003, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You seriously think that if after the first Iraqi election, the winner was a fanatical cleric who ran on a campaign of "Kick the imperialist US pigs out of Iraq", the US would let him rule?! No frigging way. The US would claim the election was rigged, or say that it violated the US designed constitution.
Nukes have stopped India and Pakistan from going to war. Those guys loathe one another. Nukes stopped the USSR and the USA from going to war. No love lost between them. Nukes stopped, and are still stopping, China and Russia from going to war. Those guys don't get along very well. What makes you think that nukes won't hold the Arabs at bay? It's not a question of desire, or motives. It's simply that no Arabic leader wants to see everything he has turned into radioactive vapour. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Strange - I thought the Russians and the Chinese got on great - ex commie buddies and all that.....
Comments
Amen to that. This is what I've been asking: what's wrong with isolationism? Why can't we let countries solve their own problems? What do we care? As long as they aren't going to nuke the world to pieces, who gives a damn? It's not like we really care for those people. Coalition could be using all that military money in helping people in lot worse conditions that in mid-east. The reason why US wants to help people in mid-east is of course oil, like stated before. The bad thing is that when president has personal intrests in oil, he's not going to leave the region like it was before. Even if it would be best for the people, it isn't best for the oil companies. Like it isn't best for the oil companies for scientists to research alternative ways of fueling peoples cars.
[QUOTE=marine01]The leaders are greedy, corrupt filth with no real concern for anything but their own hide.[/QUOTE]
Name a politician that isn't all that? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As evis said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They only got to where they are because of our money and our support. We have sent trillions of dollars in aid, both directly in cash and also in military supplies. The only reason for their survival this long is because of our aid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. The arabs can't win. Not in the first attack, or the second. Or third. Or fifth. Or thirtieth. The isrealis would decimate them. But each time the israelis loose a little more, until one day the arabs are now a serious threat to the survival of israel. And then they will be nuked. It may be 50 years from the time we cease aid, it may be 400 years from that time. But the bottom line is, stopping aid will cause even more instability. What don't you get about that? I'm not suggesting that the moment we stop aid that israel will be crushed, I never have.
So how exactly are we helping the situation by cutting off aid, if that action will run the risk of a nuclear war?
As for them not having bombs, it was widely suspected that they had bombs as early as 1967, and that they were on nuclear alert during the 6 day war. So yeah, they probably did have nuclear weapons then. The arabs don't care, the leaders won't be hurt and if a bunch of soldiers get nuked that's pretty damn good PR.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those are the simple facts: No Arabic army has been able to defeat Israel.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When they were receiving supplies and aid from western countries, you're correct. If you suddenly cease that supply, it may be a different story.
That's like saying
"south korea has NEVER been defeated by north korea, so we should pull out our troops!". Well DUH. The statement is true enough, south korea has never been defeated by north korea, but that was ONLY because we did send in troops. Take the troops away in the korean war, and south korea would have lost.
Take away the aid and support to israel, and in the long term, they may eventually be pushed to use nuclear weapons as a last resort. But who knows, maybe thats what some of you are hoping for.
How do you think other nations can slowly weaken Israel with attacks and at the same time stay powerful themselves? This is something I don't understand. I don't really think that anyone would even attack Israel at all. Like stated before, it would be a suicide. So why do you keep on arguing that other countries would attack Israel when we already have agreed that Israel kicks some major arse? Do you think that some arab nation is just going to throw their whole armies against Israel, knowing that they will lose, just in order to make Israel a tad weaker? Me = confuzed. I don't know what you are on, but you should tell me where to get some <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So yeah, they probably did have nuclear weapons then. The arabs don't care, the leaders won't be hurt and if a bunch of soldiers get nuked that's pretty damn good PR.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nukes are not anti-army weapons. They are anti-city weapons. It does concern the arab leader if their capital city gets vaporized while they sit in their shelters. 'nuff said.
I dunno, ask egypt, syria, and jordan in 1967, and 1973
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't really think that anyone would even attack Israel at all. Like stated before, it would be a suicide.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you're making a joke about suicide bombers or not. If you are, thats kinda funny <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Dread, you seem to think that these people think like you. They do not. They have a different culture, and things that would be beyond your reasoning make perfect sense to them. And vice versa.
The arabs have the desire, all they're looking for is oppertunity. While I have no doubt that israel can defend herself by herself, I disagree with cutting off trade because if israel ever gets pushed too far they may resort to nuclear weapons which is not good for anybody. The whole idea is to not let it get that far.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nukes are not anti-army weapons. They are anti-city weapons. It does concern the arab leader if their capital city gets vaporized while they sit in their shelters. 'nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you need to read up some more, because you're misinformed. The primary NATO defense versus warsaw pact units in the european theatre during the cold war were tactical nuclear weapons. Targets for strategic nuclear weapons were not limited to cities either. They could target anything of strategic importance, hense the term.
We've gone from spears to swords and shields to muskets to rifles to nuclear weapons! Whoa! Back up there a minute. That's a huge jump.
Tactics were different on the field in "micromanagement" of soldiers with different weapons. When the enemy has nuclear weapons, the best tactic is to not fight.
Nuclear winter would result if a nuclear weapon was fired off right now. They might as well have weapon which will blow the planet earth into little bity pieces. It wouldn't make any difference as far as anyone is concerned, because we'd all be dead either way. Since America bombed Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have only been used to keep the peace. That might actually be a good thing as long as it stays in that context.
I didn't say they couldn't be used against units. I mean that Israel would use them with full effeciency, meaning they would nuke cities, not armies. That is something that all arab leaders are afraid of. They can protect themselves from nukes but after they get out of their nuclear bunkers, there's nothing left to lead. That's a strong
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dunno, ask egypt, syria, and jordan in 1967, and 1973<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not very familiar with mid-eastern history, but when I did some hasty searches, these are the headlines that came up:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1967: Israel launches attack on neighbours
Israeli forces have launched a pre-emptive attack on the country's neighbouring Arab states including the destruction of nearly 400 Egypt based military aircraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems like they can handle themselves pretty well. If Arabs absolutely have the need to destroy Israel, why would we want to interfere with that? If Iran would have attacked Iraq during Saddams reign, would we have cared(excluding oil related stuff)?
No, you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the nukes were the right thing to do to end the war. It was a horrible thing to actually do, however, and many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project swore off the device they helped to invent for the inhumanity it meant. The horror and death that we brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the reason why no other nuclear weapon has ever been used against an opponent. Richard Feynman, one of the scientists that worked in Los Alamos, spent years after the war in a depressed state, thinking that the world was going to end soon because of the device he helped build. He would look at construction projects and think "why are they bothering to build roads, humanity is going to die soon."
My point in referencing it was this: all of this trauma and death were necessary evils to bring about and end to the conflict. Right or wrong in humanity terms, it helped save future deaths. We are fighting a war against Al Qaida. Both sides are going to do what they feel is necessary to win the war. USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa... those are things they are using to fight their war. We will do the same. War is hell. In times of war you cannot claim that either side is doing the just and proper thing. Just as our killing of innocent children and women in Japan to end WW2... it's not right, it's horrible, but it brought and end to the conflict.
Now if you look at what they are fighting for, I have been trying to show that the problem they have with us is not because we are a free society practicing Christianity. They despise us for our infringements against their countries and our support of Israel, who does the same infringing. I say stop all of that and pull out of the conflict altogether, and try for a more peaceful route by asking Israel to just withdraw. It is my belief the current plan is seriously flawed and can't possibly work. It is too violent and will only bring about even more violence and bloodshed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've finally got it the best comeback ever against Evis. Many members of the KKK and other white supremecist groups are quite well off and have college degrees. Mayor's sons with college degrees and a taste for fine art can be racist but this does not mean they are right. Sane people can be evil. Just because someone reads fine literature and has some degrees does not mean we have to be tolerant of their anti ****, anti jew, anti Islam, anti black views. These same people who are quite intelligent lynch people because of their race and ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree 100%. I am not trying to say what they're doing is right. I personally don't believe violence will ever solve anything long-term when it's a war between cultures and people. I'm just trying to show that the popular strereotypes Americans have of Muslim activists is very very wrong. And to that end, I think I have made a clear case.
Our nation was founded by racists... the founding fathers were slave owners who mistreated African Americans and Native Americans. Thomas Jefferson was a blatant racist who considered blacks an inferior species, and referred to them as if they were animals he raised in his farms. This blatant racism across the country lasted until the 1960s. Racism, stereotypes, and prejudism are the reasons we have these misconceptions about other cultures, and they are the reasons for political uprisings and violence in return. Just like with African Americans in the past (and present,) there is a lot of racism in this country towards Arabs and Muslims. Reading some of the posts in this thread you will find ample evidence of it. I want to try and help bring about an end to the racism and incorrect stereotypes so that we can come to a peaceful resolution. Both sides must be willing to participate. It is only through understanding the position of our enemy that we can ever hope to bring about peace. War will never... ever... achieve this.
In terms of us going back to isolationism... I think that works for a peaceful western world. But I think we have the power and the ability to make the entire world a better place. It seems like most people fall into one of two categories on this issue: A) extreme violence aka fight them until they give up or are all dead and force our ways upon them, or B) extreme non-committal aka withdraw and let them kill each other and sort things out on their own. I dislike option A, as you can tell, as it only leads to more violence. Option B is like standing around watching your neighbor get raped because you don't want to risk getting yourself hurt. That's not the right thing to do. As arbitrators of peace, we should be looking for peaceful solutions. No peace plan has worked to date, and escalated violence will never work. We need to change tactics. I've proposed one such tactic... the obstacles to achieving it are great, but all of the worthwhile goals have challenges and risks associated with them. People may disagree with the approach, but hey... why not make suggestions upon it and critique why it may not work instead of just throwing it out the door? We're a bunch of geeks playing video games, so it's not like our opinions here are going to alter the world.
[edit] Avoid double-post [/edit]
[edit] Avoid double-post [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't reply to this whole thing, but just a clarification: The founder fathers were racist against blacks, no doubt. Not so much Indians. Thomas Jefferson said something like "Whereas Blacks are biologically inferior, the inferirority of the indians is a result of pure circumstance. With help, they can be brought up to speed."
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
More so they mistreated the Native Americans. Manifest Destiny meant the Natives were going to have to be pushed out to make way for the white people, and that meant some brutal wars. Even so, as you pointed out Jefferson said they were inferior, even if it was just by circumstance. That's racist.
No, you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the nukes were the right thing to do to end the war. It was a horrible thing to actually do, however, and many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project swore off the device they helped to invent for the inhumanity it meant. The horror and death that we brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the reason why no other nuclear weapon has ever been used against an opponent. Richard Feynman, one of the scientists that worked in Los Alamos, spent years after the war in a depressed state, thinking that the world was going to end soon because of the device he helped build. He would look at construction projects and think "why are they bothering to build roads, humanity is going to die soon."
My point in referencing it was this: all of this trauma and death were necessary evils to bring about and end to the conflict. Right or wrong in humanity terms, it helped save future deaths. We are fighting a war against Al Qaida. Both sides are going to do what they feel is necessary to win the war. USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa... those are things they are using to fight their war. We will do the same. War is hell. In times of war you cannot claim that either side is doing the just and proper thing. Just as our killing of innocent children and women in Japan to end WW2... it's not right, it's horrible, but it brought and end to the conflict.
Now if you look at what they are fighting for, I have been trying to show that the problem they have with us is not because we are a free society practicing Christianity. They despise us for our infringements against their countries and our support of Israel, who does the same infringing. I say stop all of that and pull out of the conflict altogether, and try for a more peaceful route by asking Israel to just withdraw. It is my belief the current plan is seriously flawed and can't possibly work. It is too violent and will only bring about even more violence and bloodshed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've finally got it the best comeback ever against Evis. Many members of the KKK and other white supremecist groups are quite well off and have college degrees. Mayor's sons with college degrees and a taste for fine art can be racist but this does not mean they are right. Sane people can be evil. Just because someone reads fine literature and has some degrees does not mean we have to be tolerant of their anti ****, anti jew, anti Islam, anti black views. These same people who are quite intelligent lynch people because of their race and ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree 100%. I am not trying to say what they're doing is right. I personally don't believe violence will ever solve anything long-term when it's a war between cultures and people. I'm just trying to show that the popular strereotypes Americans have of Muslim activists is very very wrong. And to that end, I think I have made a clear case.
Our nation was founded by racists... the founding fathers were slave owners who mistreated African Americans and Native Americans. Thomas Jefferson was a blatant racist who considered blacks an inferior species, and referred to them as if they were animals he raised in his farms. This blatant racism across the country lasted until the 1960s. Racism, stereotypes, and prejudism are the reasons we have these misconceptions about other cultures, and they are the reasons for political uprisings and violence in return. Just like with African Americans in the past (and present,) there is a lot of racism in this country towards Arabs and Muslims. Reading some of the posts in this thread you will find ample evidence of it. I want to try and help bring about an end to the racism and incorrect stereotypes so that we can come to a peaceful resolution. Both sides must be willing to participate. It is only through understanding the position of our enemy that we can ever hope to bring about peace. War will never... ever... achieve this.
In terms of us going back to isolationism... I think that works for a peaceful western world. But I think we have the power and the ability to make the entire world a better place. It seems like most people fall into one of two categories on this issue: A) extreme violence aka fight them until they give up or are all dead and force our ways upon them, or B) extreme non-committal aka withdraw and let them kill each other and sort things out on their own. I dislike option A, as you can tell, as it only leads to more violence. Option B is like standing around watching your neighbor get raped because you don't want to risk getting yourself hurt. That's not the right thing to do. As arbitrators of peace, we should be looking for peaceful solutions. No peace plan has worked to date, and escalated violence will never work. We need to change tactics. I've proposed one such tactic... the obstacles to achieving it are great, but all of the worthwhile goals have challenges and risks associated with them. People may disagree with the approach, but hey... why not make suggestions upon it and critique why it may not work instead of just throwing it out the door? We're a bunch of geeks playing video games, so it's not like our opinions here are going to alter the world.
[edit] Avoid double-post [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though I disagree with your tactic and thoughts about S 11 you finally mad a post that makes sense to me.
First of all, who is to say that the most efficient use of nuclear weapons is against cities? What experience do you have the matter? Secondly, what has made you come to the conclusion that the israelis would nuke cities, not armies? What did you base this on? Again, you should probably not assume when it comes to something you know little about. Giving your opinion is fine: "I would think they would nuke cities, not the enemy military, because it kills population and discourages the enemy" would be a good statement to make. Compare that to the statement you actually made. See the difference? One will take what you say more seriously when you word it appropriately.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Arabs absolutely have the need to destroy Israel, why would we want to interfere with that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If israel absolutely has the need to destroy the surrounding arab states before it can feel safe, why would we want to interfere with that? You see how that statement doesn't work? Thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not very familiar with mid-eastern history, but when I did some hasty searches, these are the headlines that came up:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll enlighten you then.
On may 14, 1967, the Egyptian president Gamal Nasser demanded the withdrawl of the UN force from the sinai peninsula, which was established there 10 years earlier as a buffer zone as to prevent conflict. The UN backs down (once again, waviering when it needs to stand strong) and withdrawls the troops.
On may 15th, three egyptian army divisions roll into the Sinai.
On may 18th, Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
On May 20th, Syria announces that it is ready to repulse any aggression and in fact, act in "liberation" to wipe out Israel.
May 27th, Nassar announces his intentions of the destruction of Israel. Jordan announced a pact with Egypt to fight if they fight. Egyptian media announces that it is ready to cut Israel in two.
May 31st, Iraqi president Rahman Aref announces "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
On June 4th, Iraq joined Nasser in his military alliance to wipe israel out.
June 5: Israel strikes military targets in Egypt in a spoiling attack.
June 10: Israel accepts the UN cease fire demands.
Gee, the Israelis are "clearly" the agressors aren't they?
Where was the UN when Egypt was pouring into the Sinai?
Where was the crys of outrage when Syrian troops were shelling israeli villagers for years from the golan heights?
**** hypocrites. I never said israel was without blame or perfect, they've done some crappy stuff too, but when people cry in outrage over what israel does, yet blatently ignores (or excuses) the surrounding countries when it does similar things if not worse atrocities, it frankly pisses me off.
Most people there just want to be left alone and I respect them. And that goes for israelis, palestinians, arabs, you name it. Quite frankly I think the israelis have shown more restraint than I ever would.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seems like they can handle themselves pretty well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With western backing and aid, certainly. Without? Sure, for a time. But how long will it last, when everyone is out to get you? Not forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Iran would have attacked Iraq during Saddams reign, would we have cared(excluding oil related stuff)? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have cared. I can't speak for the people in power. Best I can do is try and vote for the lesser of the two evils.
I agree that being isolationist is a ideallists dream- even if we could, we shouldn't, as evis said. And I agree with going for peace, but there's only so much many times you can ask 2 children politely to stop fighting. Meanwhile people die. So sometimes you gotta stop the car.
Whew. I'm very glad to be making some sense. It's taken a lot of effort and a tremendous amount of flame, but hey... my flame retardant underoos have finally paid off. As you'll notice, I am trying to avoid 9/11... I don't think people are ready yet to discuss it abstractly and unemotionally. There is still too much pain and anger surrounding it. That's my fault for sticking a knife in an open wound.
So in terms of a long-term Middle East tactic, how would you change it?
[edit]
In regards to Iran and Iraq... Iran did attack Iraq. Albeit it was actually a counter-attack to Iraq's initial move. Iraq wanted to regain control of some lost territory, and invaded Iran. Iran pushed them out. Iraq went back home with their tails between their legs... but Iran wasn't satisfied with just a push back and cease fire. They were **** off and went in for the kill, invading Iraq. This was the start of a massively brutal 8-year war between the two from 1980 to 1988. Millions died, chemical and biological weapons, Saddam killed 60,000 Kurds, you name it. It also led to our support of Iraq and Saddam's military build-up. We supported Saddam and Iraq because we hated Iran more, and we didn't want Iran to take over Iraq. Our support lasted, of course, until the 2nd of August, 1990.
[/edit]
And if one suicide bomb occurs after that, then Israel can now officially declare war. I wouldn't stop until a palestinian government was put in place that really does want peace. A government that polices its own damn country to arrest the extremists. We know arafat doesn't- he may or may not condone it, but he sure doesn't work too hard to stop it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We supported Saddam and Iraq because we hated Iran more, and we didn't want Iran to take over Iraq. Our support lasted, of course, until the 2nd of August, 1990.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You got it. Same ole story in afganistan.
My thoughts? Stop supplying countries with weapons. That went out with the cold war (both russia and the US did that). If we want to help a country like Iraq in that situation, send in US troops. If the citizens don't want us to do that, then don't help. Aid is fine, but don't ARM a country. This isn't the cold war- every time we've armed a country, it's bitten us in the butt. Starting in freaking russia WWII.
My thoughts? Stop supplying countries with weapons. That went out with the cold war (both russia and the US did that). If we want to help a country like Iraq in that situation, send in US troops. If the citizens don't want us to do that, then don't help. Aid is fine, but don't ARM a country. This isn't the cold war- every time we've armed a country, it's bitten us in the butt. Starting in freaking russia WWII. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not just weapons, but material to make weapons, too... iron, steel, etc. Stop all trade to warring nations. Recall WW1. The US declared itself a neutral country, and we actively traded with <b>both</b> Allies and Axis in accordance with international law. We did not supply arms, as both sides threatened to sink any such vessel. But we gladly supplied everything they would need to make weapons. It wasn't until the British blockade of the North Sea that American merchants decided it was too expensive and risky to trade with Germany any longer.
Of course, cutting off all trade may not work, either... witness our oil embargo of Japan in the summer of 1941. Japan is an island, they were 100% dependent on foreign oil to power their military. That move forced the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor a few months later. We can't re-write history, and "what if" scenarios are pure speculation, but in that case cutting off a nation's supplies was the decisive move that resulted in all-out war.
I digress, though...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's absolutely correct, if the Arab countries were to constantly throw everything they had at Israel, and Israel had no support from us, it would be a disaster. We all know no other country would give Israel the least bit of help, Evis you say the Jews/Zionists have all this power, but they seem to only have one country working to help them, grant it were a good country to have on your side, but I thought I would mention that.
You keep chipping little bits off a big stone, what happens? Nuclear war is what happens.
As to the question posed early something like "why didn't we chose to support the Palestinians", because supporting them over Israel would have been a ridiculously stupid mistake. They have never shown the least bit of hope for succeeding, and you know unlike Israel they would have had no restraint, slaughtering all the Jews in the area, is that the kind of thing you want us to support? Israel is, IMO the only stable country there.
As for moving the Israelis to America, a better solution would be to move the Palestinians (into the ocean)
Into the neighboring Arab countries, they seem so eager to help their kin, why not give them the best help of all and move them out, where they can live in peace. That can't happen because a small group of extremists control the area.
Israel is the only peaceful country in the area they way I see it, they have been attacked again and again, yet they use considerable restraint, which I have a feeling we help keep it that way, another reason not to disconnect from Israel. They easily could destroy Palestine, perhaps the entire middle east, and in cold blunt military terms it makes more sense then "moving to America."
IMO, Israel nuking a Middle Eastern country would be <b>good</b> for the leaders there (bad for the people, though.) They then can point to the event and rant and rave about how dangerous Israel is to world peace, how genocidal, etc. Popular opinion agrees with them (In Europe, Israel is rated as the #1 Threat to World Peace), so politicians come out of the woodwork declaring that Something Should be Done. Then you get all sorts of UN backing, funding, whatever to get rid of Israel's nuclear capabilities, and anything they aren't 'mature' enough to handle. Knowing some people, this may be a complete disarmament.
Israel, if they know what's good for them, would never do this. They know who's angling for their death, and they know just how close they are. So people push for a resolution to attack Israel. Israel panics/counter-attacks/whatever and Nukes go flying. Messy.
To compound the problem, most of the other Middle Eastern nations want nukes very badly. I don't remember how close Iran is off the top of my head, but IIRC they got pretty close. Once any nation there gets one, everything changes.
If a country besides Israel has even one, Israel has to step very carefully. They can't go dropping nukes willy-nilly, because it might cause retaliation from the nation.
If you want my opinion on how Israel would stand against the other nations there, I feel they can't win the war, no matter how good their army is. Any major offensive will draw sharp critisism from the West, while other nations would be seen as the victims. If the other nations can't win in a stand up fight, they just continue suppling suicide bombers/guns/people until Israel is overwhelmed. The way I see it, Israel will run out of citizens far before the other countries run out of 'matrys'.
With western backing and aid, certainly. Without? Sure, for a time. But how long will it last, when everyone is out to get you? Not forever.
He's absolutely correct, if the Arab countries were to constantly throw everything they had at Israel, and Israel had no support from us, it would be a disaster. We all know no other country would give Israel the least bit of help, Evis you say the Jews/Zionists have all this power, but they seem to only have one country working to help them, grant it were a good country to have on your side, but I thought I would mention that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I miss something? Are the Jewish people now suddenly a bunch of poor, stupid humans? Hell no! Israel is a very wealthy state filled with a lot of wealthy people. They don't need our aid.
Looking back at 1967 and 1973, in each occurance the military forces of the surrounding Arab countries were decimated. They walked out of those two conflicts with their military infrastructure in ruins. Israel was just too strong. In both wars, no Arabic army came close to actually threatening Israel itself, and as such, Israel never contemplated using nukes that may or may not have existed then. They didn't need to.
Now let's just break the bonds of reality and assume that a Saudi-Syrian-Egyptian-Iraqi-Iranian force actually managed to defeat Israel's military might on the battlefield tommorow, providing of course that all these countries put aside the fact that they dislike one another. Arabic armies stand poised to strike at the heart of Israel. What happens? The nukes start flying. Tactical nukes destroy the Arabic armed forces. Larger warheads hit major population centres across the Middle East. Israel saves itself, in the process destroying just about the whole Middle East. The Arab leaders might only care for personal power. They might only care for their palaces. But nukes can take away exactly that. Nukes can turn them from omnipitant despots to nothing. And understand that at least one Jewish Jericho MRBM is targetted on Mecca and another on Medina.
The Arabic leaders know all that which I just wrote. They know that there can be no victory against Israel. In 1967 and 1973 they had a chance, because they didn't know for sure if Israel had nukes and they believed their military forces would be able to defeat those of the Israelis. Now though, it's a lose-lose situation. They can't defeat Israel's military power, and even if they did, their entire kingdoms would be destroyed along with the most important sites of their religion, Mecca and Medina. Net result: loss of personal power, wealth, religion and Israel still alive and very much kicking.
Nukes don't cost much to maintain. Israel is fully aware that since it is now a recognised major nuclear power, it is effectively immune to attack and invasion. If we were to withdraw all our aid funding to Israel tommorow, they might have to make some cutbacks to their military (though I highly doubt it given Israel's own substantial wealth), but they still have 200 odd nuclear weapons, enough to stop any Arab leader from even considering an invasion.
This isn't even Mutually Assured Destruction; it's Arabic Assured Destruction. Once again, the Arabs know this. And that's why all they'll do is send some funding to terrorist groups and Palestinian suicide bombers, just like they do now. If the US was to withdraw tommorow, nothing would change.
I'm not so sure, like I said before we are Israel’s only real ally, if we were to cut them off from us they have no one left to appease. There much regarded restraint with the Palestinians might slip into a military conquest. I have no doubt that we keep Israel in check in some ways, naturally if they were to invade Palestine and take land to keep, push the people out, they would lose our support. If they had already lost that they really, as you say, have little to fear from the Arabs, who I still think could wear them down over time to the point where they would have to use nuclear weapons.
Israel doesn't hold back restraint for fear of retaliation from the US. They know that the US will only "strongly condemn" their actions, and would never think about taking military action against Israel.
There is no such thing as "invade Palestine" since there is no Palestine. Israel has already taken over all the land alloted to the Palestinians, and they keep reaching for more. The great big push-out started during WW2 when the Jews fled Europe and tried to cram into the tiny little British Mandate for Palestine. I am incredulous towards anyone that says Israel is the best thing that's ever happened to the Middle East. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. After WW1, the League of Nations handed the Brits control over the area we know today as Israel. Until a country was formed, it was just known as The Palestine Mandate. The Brits decided to allow the Zionists to form a country there instead of giving it to the Palestinians so the Zionists could fulfill their goal of having an independent country, Israel. Note that the Brits had already promised this land to the Palestinians prior to this. It wasn't just a nice gift, this came about because of something the Zionists gave in return. The Palestinians of course protested, and tried to resist. 80+ years later people are still fighting and dying because of that colossal mistake. Without Britain giving the land over to the Zionists, we'd have none of this Middle East violence against Jews or against the US. No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no attacks against American interests. No one can say that we or the Middle East are better off because of how Israel came into being and our choice of supporting them all these years.
I fail to see how sending more aid and wishing for peace is going to bring about any. All that does is help to make sure the violence continues indefinitely. Arabs are backed by oil, and the Israelis are backed by us. I guess we just wait until one or the other runs out of cash. Until then, let the violence continue.
The more you know! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More so they mistreated the Native Americans. Manifest Destiny meant the Natives were going to have to be pushed out to make way for the white people, and that meant some brutal wars. Even so, as you pointed out Jefferson said they were inferior, even if it was just by circumstance. That's racist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to nitpick, but theres a difference between 'Fouding Fathers' and late 19th Century Fathers. The early American government assumed that the Native Americans would realize how kickin' rad Western Civ was and hope on board! Thats why there were many movements to 'westernize' Native Americans Dartmouth College, an example). When Native Americans said "We're cool, thanks anyway." Americans became **** off. Their egos were so high that when their way of life was rejected by Native Americans, it turned to anger. A very primitive, militant version of "America: Love it or Leave it".
Jefferson's statement was racist, but not against native americans.
What is racist in the following statement?
"Indians are stupid cause of luck. Blacks are stupid because of race."
Obviously, its the attachment of race to black intellect, not the attachment of luck to Indian intellect.
Holy crap, I'm debating Evis on something other than Bush/Israel/Iraq :-) Yay
Oh- I agree the treatment of native americans was heinous. I am in now way apologizing for the horrors of Manifest destiny, just trying to dispell "Founders = Indian Racists" idea.
Oh #2, and Ryo: Israel runs a HUGE defeict government. It can't afford to support itself, hence US aid.
Israel doesn't hold back restraint for fear of retaliation from the US. They know that the US will only "strongly condemn" their actions, and would never think about taking military action against Israel.
There is no such thing as "invade Palestine" since there is no Palestine. Israel has already taken over all the land alloted to the Palestinians, and they keep reaching for more. The great big push-out started during WW2 when the Jews fled Europe and tried to cram into the tiny little British Mandate for Palestine. I am incredulous towards anyone that says Israel is the best thing that's ever happened to the Middle East. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. After WW1, the League of Nations handed the Brits control over the area we know today as Israel. Until a country was formed, it was just known as The Palestine Mandate. The Brits decided to allow the Zionists to form a country there instead of giving it to the Palestinians so the Zionists could fulfill their goal of having an independent country, Israel. Note that the Brits had already promised this land to the Palestinians prior to this. It wasn't just a nice gift, this came about because of something the Zionists gave in return. The Palestinians of course protested, and tried to resist. 80+ years later people are still fighting and dying because of that colossal mistake. Without Britain giving the land over to the Zionists, we'd have none of this Middle East violence against Jews or against the US. No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no attacks against American interests. No one can say that we or the Middle East are better off because of how Israel came into being and our choice of supporting them all these years.
I fail to see how sending more aid and wishing for peace is going to bring about any. All that does is help to make sure the violence continues indefinitely. Arabs are backed by oil, and the Israelis are backed by us. I guess we just wait until one or the other runs out of cash. Until then, let the violence continue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It quite possibly was a bad move to do that.... However there is nothing we can do about what happened 80+ years ago. We can only change <i>now</i>. I think it would be better to talk about what we should do with the choices they made in the past and try and make something out of the mess.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the US runs a huge defeict government as well. Yet it maintains the world's most powerful military force.
The thing is, say Israel lost the aid funding and had to cut back on their military. It wouldn't make a lick of differance. The nukes remain their silos, ready to launch if Israel gets in trouble. Look at Russia; their army is in tatters, yet no-one's invading them because Russia has a heap of nukes. Same with Israel. The Arabs won't invade because even if Israel's army was cut back they'd stand a poor chance of actually winning and there's still the nukes to consider.
Also there's the fact that most of the Middle Eastern nations hate each other. Saudi Arabia doesn't get along with many people due to the large US pressence in their nation, Iran hates everyone, Iraq is no longer even remotely a threat to anyone except the poor US soldiers stationed there, Syria is more concerned with avoiding being invaded by the US and Egypt isn't interested in another war with Israel. Turn the clock back and you can see Middle Eastern alliances, but these days? Forget it. You'd need something massive, like Israel bombing Mecca, to unite the Middle East against Israel.
So why are we giving these guys money?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Seriously, why? Our pressense in the Middle East is causing quite a few problems, and what exactly are the benefits? As I have said earlier, I see no reason why we shouldn't just pull out and let the people there do whatever the hell they want. There are plenty of people back home who need some of the benefits of democracy: like education, health care and social security.
The US will run out of its own oil in the next decade, assuming the present extraction rate and no future miracle discovery. If we choose to remain dependent on a non-renewable fossil fuel, we will continue to have to trade with foreign countries to get it. Americans consume 25% of all the oil output each year. In terms of size of proven oil reserves, you've got the following (in order:) Saudia Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran. After the Middle East, the next big thing is the Caspian Sea area, which supposedly contains some 200 billion barrels. Just it's harder to extract since the terrain is more rugged and (till now) politcally unfeasible. A pipeline that leads from the Caspian area (Turkmenistan) across... tada... Afghanistan down to Pakistan is presently in the works. The US company known as Unocal owns the largest stake in this pipeline. They wanted to build one for years, but the darned Taliban kept messing with their plans.
For me, the answer to this problem about oil is simple: remove the dependency altogether! Start spending some serious cash on finding viable alternatives that are renewable. We put together the greatest minds on the planet to develop the nuclear weapon in just a few years' time. We could do the same to solve this problem. Except no one seems to really want to do that. Definitely won't ever happen with our current administration. When will we realize that the oil crash is coming?
Secondly, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwaiit control most of the world's oil supply. Now say they said "Oh, we're cutting it off". Their economies would crash terribly. Their only real choice is to keep selling the oil they have because their economies have grown to the point where oil is all they have. The Middle East is going to seriously fall apart in around 2030 - 2040 when the oil runs out. My point here is that I believe that if we did pull out, the oil would keep flowing. I accept your point though and I can understand why we maintain a pressence there, still the logic of promoting democracy in the region escapes me.
However, I fully back up greatly increased spending on alternate fuels. Being in the Middle East is hurting Western nations, both by economic and military costs, plus the diplomatic problems caused by actions such as the Iraq war. If we can break our dependance on oil, and a seriously think that we can (sooner or later we'll have to), we can leave the whole region alone and let them do whatever the hell they want. The sooner we can do that, the better.
Setting up a democracy isn't bad. Cramming western values down their throats is what we're giving them that they DON'T need.
You can't say it's not democracy they don't want- that they don't want a choice. It's the western CULTURE they don't want. And there's nothing that says you have to have western culture to have a democracy.
The whole point of the democracy is a party system that has checks and balances, Ryo if they want a conservative muslim leader, they can simply elect the guy. You seem to think they'll be forced next to elect democrats/republicans! There are communist parties, socialist parties, green parties, all kinds. To americans, these are 3rd parties and hardly get any votes... because most of the people fall into the repub/democrat region. In the middle east, it may be a different story.
I may disagree with you on the military, but in my opinion, these people hate israel so much that nukes are not as big a deterrent as you believe, and that israels military, even if they DON'T cut down, won't be able to stop the surrounding countries forever. For a long time maybe, but not forever by itself.
Nukes have stopped India and Pakistan from going to war. Those guys loathe one another. Nukes stopped the USSR and the USA from going to war. No love lost between them. Nukes stopped, and are still stopping, China and Russia from going to war. Those guys don't get along very well. What makes you think that nukes won't hold the Arabs at bay? It's not a question of desire, or motives. It's simply that no Arabic leader wants to see everything he has turned into radioactive vapour.
Nukes have stopped India and Pakistan from going to war. Those guys loathe one another. Nukes stopped the USSR and the USA from going to war. No love lost between them. Nukes stopped, and are still stopping, China and Russia from going to war. Those guys don't get along very well. What makes you think that nukes won't hold the Arabs at bay? It's not a question of desire, or motives. It's simply that no Arabic leader wants to see everything he has turned into radioactive vapour. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange - I thought the Russians and the Chinese got on great - ex commie buddies and all that.....