Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere.
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he posseses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy.
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they havent caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Full Version: Neoconservative Mideast Strategy
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 24 2005, 03:48 PM)
Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere.
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he posseses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy.
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they havent caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere.
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he posseses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy.
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they havent caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Where is your "analysis", "proof"?
This sounds like a Hitlerian strategy!
Your second title is an oxymoron!
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
Correction Ben.
the Kh22 "Kitchen" cruise missle has a range ceiling of only 300 miles, not 3,000. Big difference. I might also note that the "Kitchen" has a very poor success rate, which is typical of Soviet military equipment. And the unusual low ceiling that you mention is the principle reason for it's high failure rate. The "Kitchen" is a supersonic cruise missle, and due to it's speed is unable to manuever at a low altituce like that of the American cruise missiles which are subsonic and thus able to move up and down with the terrain. The Russians always try to overacheive to the point of continual failure. Out gain! Also, the US GPS system is vastly superior to anything the Russians, much less than the Iranians would be able to field.
One other thing about the Kh22. It is small and fast, which means that for it to house a fissile device, it must use one that contains a small enough payload to fit within the housing. And there is the rub. The Iranians, should they be successful to construct a fission device, and keep the Israelies from destroying them, will most certainly be constructed of U235, not PU239. There is huge difference here, in that while both are more than capable of causing a chain reaction, one is far more efficient, and thus smaller, than the other.
U235 requires far more material to acheive the same yield per pound than PU239. Thus in order to fit within the confines of the warhead of the "Kitchen", it must be accompanied by an accellerant, or enhancer. And the enhancer of choice is Tritium. Unfortunately for Iran, and fortunately for the rest of the world, tritium is a controlled material, coordinated by IAEA. All tritium created by it's signatories are routinely inspected and the date of manufacter is recorded. And currently only two manufacterors are in production, of which the US is not one. Note, the US has so much that they do not need to make any more, in spite of it's short half life.
So, if the Iranians were able to fit the "package" into the warhead, they would most certainly have to use tritium with the U235. If they use such a device, the residu would be easily traced not only back to the producer, but to the exact date of manufacter. No producer of tritium, in their right mind, would give such a loose cannon as the Iranians. The weight of the entire world would also fall upon them.
To make a long story short, the Iranians probably purchased the "Kitchens" as a figurative deterent, with hopes of eventually being able to make a small enough device to use at a later date. My bets are that they will not.
Again, as I have stated at other places, the most efficient delivery device for the Iranians, should they successfully produce a fissile bomb, is still the delivery van. Tighten up it's suspension and ensure that the vehicle is big enough to carry such a heavy load, AND all the lead shielding, and make it to the target without being detected. what are the odds of this, assuming that the US has already sold enough sophisticate detection metres already.
The Iranians would have to be both awfully smant and lucky to acheive such success. I suspect that the N. Koreans are the real model. Have a device, threaten the rest of the world, using the Chinese model, and hope that some enterprising poker player does not call their hand.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
That is All!!
the Kh22 "Kitchen" cruise missle has a range ceiling of only 300 miles, not 3,000. Big difference. I might also note that the "Kitchen" has a very poor success rate, which is typical of Soviet military equipment. And the unusual low ceiling that you mention is the principle reason for it's high failure rate. The "Kitchen" is a supersonic cruise missle, and due to it's speed is unable to manuever at a low altituce like that of the American cruise missiles which are subsonic and thus able to move up and down with the terrain. The Russians always try to overacheive to the point of continual failure. Out gain! Also, the US GPS system is vastly superior to anything the Russians, much less than the Iranians would be able to field.
One other thing about the Kh22. It is small and fast, which means that for it to house a fissile device, it must use one that contains a small enough payload to fit within the housing. And there is the rub. The Iranians, should they be successful to construct a fission device, and keep the Israelies from destroying them, will most certainly be constructed of U235, not PU239. There is huge difference here, in that while both are more than capable of causing a chain reaction, one is far more efficient, and thus smaller, than the other.
U235 requires far more material to acheive the same yield per pound than PU239. Thus in order to fit within the confines of the warhead of the "Kitchen", it must be accompanied by an accellerant, or enhancer. And the enhancer of choice is Tritium. Unfortunately for Iran, and fortunately for the rest of the world, tritium is a controlled material, coordinated by IAEA. All tritium created by it's signatories are routinely inspected and the date of manufacter is recorded. And currently only two manufacterors are in production, of which the US is not one. Note, the US has so much that they do not need to make any more, in spite of it's short half life.
So, if the Iranians were able to fit the "package" into the warhead, they would most certainly have to use tritium with the U235. If they use such a device, the residu would be easily traced not only back to the producer, but to the exact date of manufacter. No producer of tritium, in their right mind, would give such a loose cannon as the Iranians. The weight of the entire world would also fall upon them.
To make a long story short, the Iranians probably purchased the "Kitchens" as a figurative deterent, with hopes of eventually being able to make a small enough device to use at a later date. My bets are that they will not.
Again, as I have stated at other places, the most efficient delivery device for the Iranians, should they successfully produce a fissile bomb, is still the delivery van. Tighten up it's suspension and ensure that the vehicle is big enough to carry such a heavy load, AND all the lead shielding, and make it to the target without being detected. what are the odds of this, assuming that the US has already sold enough sophisticate detection metres already.
The Iranians would have to be both awfully smant and lucky to acheive such success. I suspect that the N. Koreans are the real model. Have a device, threaten the rest of the world, using the Chinese model, and hope that some enterprising poker player does not call their hand.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
That is All!!
QUOTE (John L @ Apr 24 2005, 09:45 AM)
Correction Ben.
the Kh22 "Kitchen" cruise missle has a range ceiling of only 300 miles, not 3,000. Big difference. I might also note that the "Kitchen" has a very poor success rate, which is typical of Soviet military equipment. And the unusual low ceiling that you mention is the principle reason for it's high failure rate. The "Kitchen" is a supersonic cruise missle, and due to it's speed is unable to manuever at a low altituce like that of the American cruise missiles which are subsonic and thus able to move up and down with the terrain. The Russians always try to overacheive to the point of continual failure. Out gain! Also, the US GPS system is vastly superior to anything the Russians, much less than the Iranians would be able to field.
One other thing about the Kh22. It is small and fast, which means that for it to house a fissile device, it must use one that contains a small enough payload to fit within the housing. And there is the rub. The Iranians, should they be successful to construct a fission device, and keep the Israelies from destroying them, will most certainly be constructed of U235, not PU239. There is huge difference here, in that while both are more than capable of causling a chain reaction, one is far more efficient, and this smaller, than the other.
U235 requires far more material to acheive the same yield per pound than PU239. Thus in order to fit within the confines of the warhead of the "Kitchen", it must be accompanied by an accellerant, or enhancer. And the enhancer of choice is Tritium. Unfortunately for Iran, and fortunately for the rest of the world, tritium is a controlled material, coordinated by IAEA. All tritium created by it's signatories are routinely inspected and the date of manufacter is recorded. And currently only two manufacterors are in production, of which the US is not one. Note, the US has so much that they do not need to make any more, in spite of it's short half life.
So, if the Iranians were able to fit the "package" into the warhead, they would most certainly have to use tritium with the U235. If they use such a device, the residu would be easily traced not only back to the producer, but to the exact date of manufacter. No producer of tritium, in their right mind, would give such a loose cannon as the Iranians. The weight of the entire world would also fall upon them.
To make a long story short, the Iranians probably purchased the "Kitchens" as a figurative deterent, with hopes of eventually being able to make a small enough device to use at a later date. My bets are that they will not.
Again, as I have stated at other places, the most efficient delivery device for the Iranians, should they successfully produce a fissile bomb, is still the delivery van. Tighten up it's suspension and ensure that the vehicle is big enough to carry such a heavy load, AND all the lead shielding, and make it to the target without being detected. what are the odds of this, assuming that the US has already sold enough sophisticate detection metres already.
The Iranians would have to be both awfully smant and lucky to acheive such success. I suspect that the N. Koreans are the real model. Have a device, threaten the rest of the world, using the Chinese model, and hope that some enterprising poker player does not call their hand.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
That is All!!
the Kh22 "Kitchen" cruise missle has a range ceiling of only 300 miles, not 3,000. Big difference. I might also note that the "Kitchen" has a very poor success rate, which is typical of Soviet military equipment. And the unusual low ceiling that you mention is the principle reason for it's high failure rate. The "Kitchen" is a supersonic cruise missle, and due to it's speed is unable to manuever at a low altituce like that of the American cruise missiles which are subsonic and thus able to move up and down with the terrain. The Russians always try to overacheive to the point of continual failure. Out gain! Also, the US GPS system is vastly superior to anything the Russians, much less than the Iranians would be able to field.
One other thing about the Kh22. It is small and fast, which means that for it to house a fissile device, it must use one that contains a small enough payload to fit within the housing. And there is the rub. The Iranians, should they be successful to construct a fission device, and keep the Israelies from destroying them, will most certainly be constructed of U235, not PU239. There is huge difference here, in that while both are more than capable of causling a chain reaction, one is far more efficient, and this smaller, than the other.
U235 requires far more material to acheive the same yield per pound than PU239. Thus in order to fit within the confines of the warhead of the "Kitchen", it must be accompanied by an accellerant, or enhancer. And the enhancer of choice is Tritium. Unfortunately for Iran, and fortunately for the rest of the world, tritium is a controlled material, coordinated by IAEA. All tritium created by it's signatories are routinely inspected and the date of manufacter is recorded. And currently only two manufacterors are in production, of which the US is not one. Note, the US has so much that they do not need to make any more, in spite of it's short half life.
So, if the Iranians were able to fit the "package" into the warhead, they would most certainly have to use tritium with the U235. If they use such a device, the residu would be easily traced not only back to the producer, but to the exact date of manufacter. No producer of tritium, in their right mind, would give such a loose cannon as the Iranians. The weight of the entire world would also fall upon them.
To make a long story short, the Iranians probably purchased the "Kitchens" as a figurative deterent, with hopes of eventually being able to make a small enough device to use at a later date. My bets are that they will not.
Again, as I have stated at other places, the most efficient delivery device for the Iranians, should they successfully produce a fissile bomb, is still the delivery van. Tighten up it's suspension and ensure that the vehicle is big enough to carry such a heavy load, AND all the lead shielding, and make it to the target without being detected. what are the odds of this, assuming that the US has already sold enough sophisticate detection metres already.
The Iranians would have to be both awfully smant and lucky to acheive such success. I suspect that the N. Koreans are the real model. Have a device, threaten the rest of the world, using the Chinese model, and hope that some enterprising poker player does not call their hand.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
That is All!!
Its a possibility I mislabelled the missile. Either way it is a 3,000 mile range missile So I must have botched up the missile.
QUOTE ("OsManli")
Your second title is an oxymoron!
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
As I have stated previously, the word "Neo-Con" is code word for Jew. Ben, are you a Jew? The OsMan thinks so. If you are not, you must rephrase your title to make it more accurate.
And also keep clowns from using you as the butt of jokes. My designations are far better, because they are accurate and OsManli proff.
QUOTE (John L @ Apr 24 2005, 09:48 AM)
QUOTE ("OsManli")
Your second title is an oxymoron!
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
90% of the neocons are zionists and they make no effort to hide it!
Benny, do you get your paycheck from the pro-israeli lobby groups like these guys?
As I have stated previously, the word "Neo-Con" is code word for Jew. Ben, are you a Jew? The OsMan thinks so. If you are not, you must rephrase your title to make it more accurate.
And also keep clowns from using you as the butt of jokes. My designations are far better, because they are accurate and OsManli proff.
hmmm. Well I always though I was a Catholic but....no, I must be Jewish!
One thing I forgot to mention above it the half life of tritium. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. That's right, only 12.5 years! This means that for an enhanced fissile device to be small and effective, it must be continually enriched with new tritium, or it will not perform up to spec.
We all hear about the 'suitcase' bomb that is so dangerous. Well, in order to produce one of these, the tritium must either be rotated, or the device must be used rather quickly. The 'so called' Russian 'suitcase' bombs that were supposed to have been buried at certain locations in the US are most likely not usable anymore, if the rumours are true.
This is one reason why I never really thought the Soviets were all that capable of nukeing the US as we always feared. First, the Soviet missiles had a terrible habit of either blowing up on launch(until recently they were liquid fueled), or missing the target that they were aimed at. Can you imagine a deteriorating empire, cash strapped, spending the necessary funds to constantly rotate and purify all the tritium in each warhead aimed at the mean old US?
Perhaps perception is as important as, if not more than, reality.
BTY, a fissile yield that does not detonate properly, is called a 'fizzle'. It is a chain reaction that just can't quite get it's pants on.
We all hear about the 'suitcase' bomb that is so dangerous. Well, in order to produce one of these, the tritium must either be rotated, or the device must be used rather quickly. The 'so called' Russian 'suitcase' bombs that were supposed to have been buried at certain locations in the US are most likely not usable anymore, if the rumours are true.
This is one reason why I never really thought the Soviets were all that capable of nukeing the US as we always feared. First, the Soviet missiles had a terrible habit of either blowing up on launch(until recently they were liquid fueled), or missing the target that they were aimed at. Can you imagine a deteriorating empire, cash strapped, spending the necessary funds to constantly rotate and purify all the tritium in each warhead aimed at the mean old US?
Perhaps perception is as important as, if not more than, reality.
BTY, a fissile yield that does not detonate properly, is called a 'fizzle'. It is a chain reaction that just can't quite get it's pants on.
Ok, let's take Benny's work apart.....
Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
Why? Why is this a "long, multi-generational conflict"?? Seems to me there is a pattern with USA, that they need an "enemy" to survive. Anyone who thinks objectively sees the motive behind long wars, the provide the military-industrial complex, who lobby elected officials, like Dubya, with perpetual cash flow!.. MOTIVE #1, to provide a demand for products that murder innocent civilians!!
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
To whom was this "clear message" sent to? OBL in a cave? A small child would have a hard time believing this continued fairytale that OBL did 9/11.Over 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't was involved. OBL has NO CAPABILITY to pull off a stunt like 9/11.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
Define "democratize"? If it means to savagely bomb a civilian population back to the stone age, you can take it an go to hell!
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
I like these "patriotic" words like "Liberty" (with a capitol). My first question is what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? If the USA would have provided proof that OBL did 9/11, they would have turned him in (I am quoting the Taliban foreign minister), Tell me Benny, how does USA get "Liberty: from attacking poor countries and killing poor people?
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
No WMDs, no El-Qida links, 100% bovine excrement from the Dubya white house, until the USA came and manufactured an EL-Qida out of the one-legged Zarqawi, who flew back from Madrid after 3/11 (on his magic carpet) to iraq to do some "beheadings"
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Why don't you Americans get out of iraq first! Be an example!
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere
You like Egypt just the way it is! It yields to the Zionists and is at America’s command, don't fool yourself
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he possesses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Momar made a deal with the USA so he can sell you cheap oil and Dubya can gloat!
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy
This is quite funny! The only reason you call Syria "dangerous" is because your Zionist masters don't like them so close! The Zionists were kicked out of southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah freedom fighters! This is the issue! Sure! They need "democracy" too! With large bombs from B-152s!
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Turkey will be the zionist-american axis of evil's next target after Iran, but by then, USA will have had a economic collapse and will it self be irrelevant!
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they haven’t caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Sure! As long as a illegitimate USA puppet clown king is in power!
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
This is the Zionists real target, Because it is home of Islam!
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Until they find lots of oil!
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
These are purchased despots with lots of oil!
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Don't see what makes them a "clear enemy", they basically grovel to American requests!
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
Fantastic! Don't know why its a coincidence, but it seems like when Ariel Sharon made his hit list, it was exactly what the right wing neocon lunatics had on their own hit lists! Iran is no threat, except perhaps Israel if Israel continues its barbaric ethnic cleansing on palestinians, but even with that, the likelihood of Iranian aggression is very very slim.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Hold on! Why have the UN involved! Aren't they "corrupt"? If USA is stupid enough to get into a war in Iran, many things will happen:
1. They will lose in a massive guerrilla war
2. They will lose because USAs economy will collapse under the burden of debt, because the Chinese will not want to finance another zionist-american war!
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
America has lost all credibility, the zionists don't care, because they know that american's superpower status days are numbered, so they are trying to go all out, first with Iraq.....
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
There is one solution for Palestine: pre-1967 borders with no fanatic zionist settlers who target small palestinian children, who cut down orchards, who beat palestinians, who destroy palestinian crops with poison, who poison drinking wells!
Who started the 1967 six day war?
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html
Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
Why? Why is this a "long, multi-generational conflict"?? Seems to me there is a pattern with USA, that they need an "enemy" to survive. Anyone who thinks objectively sees the motive behind long wars, the provide the military-industrial complex, who lobby elected officials, like Dubya, with perpetual cash flow!.. MOTIVE #1, to provide a demand for products that murder innocent civilians!!
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
To whom was this "clear message" sent to? OBL in a cave? A small child would have a hard time believing this continued fairytale that OBL did 9/11.Over 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't was involved. OBL has NO CAPABILITY to pull off a stunt like 9/11.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
Define "democratize"? If it means to savagely bomb a civilian population back to the stone age, you can take it an go to hell!
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
I like these "patriotic" words like "Liberty" (with a capitol). My first question is what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? If the USA would have provided proof that OBL did 9/11, they would have turned him in (I am quoting the Taliban foreign minister), Tell me Benny, how does USA get "Liberty: from attacking poor countries and killing poor people?
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
No WMDs, no El-Qida links, 100% bovine excrement from the Dubya white house, until the USA came and manufactured an EL-Qida out of the one-legged Zarqawi, who flew back from Madrid after 3/11 (on his magic carpet) to iraq to do some "beheadings"
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Why don't you Americans get out of iraq first! Be an example!
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere
You like Egypt just the way it is! It yields to the Zionists and is at America’s command, don't fool yourself
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he possesses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Momar made a deal with the USA so he can sell you cheap oil and Dubya can gloat!
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy
This is quite funny! The only reason you call Syria "dangerous" is because your Zionist masters don't like them so close! The Zionists were kicked out of southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah freedom fighters! This is the issue! Sure! They need "democracy" too! With large bombs from B-152s!
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Turkey will be the zionist-american axis of evil's next target after Iran, but by then, USA will have had a economic collapse and will it self be irrelevant!
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they haven’t caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Sure! As long as a illegitimate USA puppet clown king is in power!
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
This is the Zionists real target, Because it is home of Islam!
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Until they find lots of oil!
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
These are purchased despots with lots of oil!
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Don't see what makes them a "clear enemy", they basically grovel to American requests!
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
Fantastic! Don't know why its a coincidence, but it seems like when Ariel Sharon made his hit list, it was exactly what the right wing neocon lunatics had on their own hit lists! Iran is no threat, except perhaps Israel if Israel continues its barbaric ethnic cleansing on palestinians, but even with that, the likelihood of Iranian aggression is very very slim.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Hold on! Why have the UN involved! Aren't they "corrupt"? If USA is stupid enough to get into a war in Iran, many things will happen:
1. They will lose in a massive guerrilla war
2. They will lose because USAs economy will collapse under the burden of debt, because the Chinese will not want to finance another zionist-american war!
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
America has lost all credibility, the zionists don't care, because they know that american's superpower status days are numbered, so they are trying to go all out, first with Iraq.....
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
There is one solution for Palestine: pre-1967 borders with no fanatic zionist settlers who target small palestinian children, who cut down orchards, who beat palestinians, who destroy palestinian crops with poison, who poison drinking wells!
Who started the 1967 six day war?
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html
OsMan, I am on a roll here, and simply don't have the time to address all your points.
However, there is one thing I must castigate you on. After all this time, you still have not learned how to use the quote option. please experiament a bit and practice getting the proceedure correct. It will not only help others understand you better, but will also enhance your professional image.
However, there is one thing I must castigate you on. After all this time, you still have not learned how to use the quote option. please experiament a bit and practice getting the proceedure correct. It will not only help others understand you better, but will also enhance your professional image.
QUOTE (OsManli @ Apr 24 2005, 10:06 AM)
Ok, let's take Benny's work apart.....
Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
Why? Why is this a "long, multi-generational conflict"?? Seems to me there is a pattern with USA, that they need an "enemy" to survive. Anyone who thinks objectively sees the motive behind long wars, the provide the military-industrial complex, who lobby elected officials, like Dubya, with perpetual cash flow!.. MOTIVE #1, to provide a demand for products that murder innocent civilians!!
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
To whom was this "clear message" sent to? OBL in a cave? A small child would have a hard time believing this continued fairytale that OBL did 9/11.Over 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't was involved. OBL has NO CAPABILITY to pull off a stunt like 9/11.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
Define "democratize"? If it means to savagely bomb a civilian population back to the stone age, you can take it an go to hell!
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
I like these "patriotic" words like "Liberty" (with a capitol). My first question is what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? If the USA would have provided proof that OBL did 9/11, they would have turned him in (I am quoting the Taliban foreign minister), Tell me Benny, how does USA get "Liberty: from attacking poor countries and killing poor people?
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
No WMDs, no El-Qida links, 100% bovine excrement from the Dubya white house, until the USA came and manufactured an EL-Qida out of the one-legged Zarqawi, who flew back from Madrid after 3/11 (on his magic carpet) to iraq to do some "beheadings"
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Why don't you Americans get out of iraq first! Be an example!
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere
You like Egypt just the way it is! It yields to the Zionists and is at America’s command, don't fool yourself
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he possesses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Momar made a deal with the USA so he can sell you cheap oil and Dubya can gloat!
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy
This is quite funny! The only reason you call Syria "dangerous" is because your Zionist masters don't like them so close! The Zionists were kicked out of southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah freedom fighters! This is the issue! Sure! They need "democracy" too! With large bombs from B-152s!
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Turkey will be the zionist-american axis of evil's next target after Iran, but by then, USA will have had a economic collapse and will it self be irrelevant!
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they haven’t caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Sure! As long as a illegitimate USA puppet clown king is in power!
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
This is the Zionists real target, Because it is home of Islam!
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Until they find lots of oil!
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
These are purchased despots with lots of oil!
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Don't see what makes them a "clear enemy", they basically grovel to American requests!
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
Fantastic! Don't know why its a coincidence, but it seems like when Ariel Sharon made his hit list, it was exactly what the right wing neocon lunatics had on their own hit lists! Iran is no threat, except perhaps Israel if Israel continues its barbaric ethnic cleansing on palestinians, but even with that, the likelihood of Iranian aggression is very very slim.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Hold on! Why have the UN involved! Aren't they "corrupt"? If USA is stupid enough to get into a war in Iran, many things will happen:
1. They will lose in a massive guerrilla war
2. They will lose because USAs economy will collapse under the burden of debt, because the Chinese will not want to finance another zionist-american war!
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
America has lost all credibility, the zionists don't care, because they know that american's superpower status days are numbered, so they are trying to go all out, first with Iraq.....
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
There is one solution for Palestine: pre-1967 borders with no fanatic zionist settlers who target small palestinian children, who cut down orchards, who beat palestinians, who destroy palestinian crops with poison, who poison drinking wells!
Who started the 1967 six day war?
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html
Okay so as both a Neoconservative and a buff on Middle East history and politics, this is where I think the United States and her allies stand now, and where we should move next. It is useful to note that I feel this "War on Terror" Is going to be a long, multi-generational conflict, such as the Cold War.
Why? Why is this a "long, multi-generational conflict"?? Seems to me there is a pattern with USA, that they need an "enemy" to survive. Anyone who thinks objectively sees the motive behind long wars, the provide the military-industrial complex, who lobby elected officials, like Dubya, with perpetual cash flow!.. MOTIVE #1, to provide a demand for products that murder innocent civilians!!
The Bush Doctrine outlined after 9/11 sent a clear message that has in every way been enforced: The United States is done with this bullshit. These religious fundies have been attacking us since 1979, and it's all gonna change.
To whom was this "clear message" sent to? OBL in a cave? A small child would have a hard time believing this continued fairytale that OBL did 9/11.Over 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't was involved. OBL has NO CAPABILITY to pull off a stunt like 9/11.
Since then we have been taking steps to Democratize the Middle East.
Define "democratize"? If it means to savagely bomb a civilian population back to the stone age, you can take it an go to hell!
First Afghanistan. Things went relatively easily here, there is still a Taliban insurgency, but it's an even bigger joke than the Iraqi one. I would say it is clearly on the side of Liberty.
I like these "patriotic" words like "Liberty" (with a capitol). My first question is what did the Taliban have to do with 9/11? If the USA would have provided proof that OBL did 9/11, they would have turned him in (I am quoting the Taliban foreign minister), Tell me Benny, how does USA get "Liberty: from attacking poor countries and killing poor people?
Next we have Iraq. The war is beginning to wind down here, and the Insurgency has long been on the run. Within a few years I think Iraq will be another Democratic state.
No WMDs, no El-Qida links, 100% bovine excrement from the Dubya white house, until the USA came and manufactured an EL-Qida out of the one-legged Zarqawi, who flew back from Madrid after 3/11 (on his magic carpet) to iraq to do some "beheadings"
Lebanon- Syrians getting out, democracy being brought to the region. We don't have much to worry about.
Why don't you Americans get out of iraq first! Be an example!
Egypt- Having multi-party elections this year, but I think we should still keep our eye on the Egyptian situation. For now we can afford to be looking elsewhere
You like Egypt just the way it is! It yields to the Zionists and is at America’s command, don't fool yourself
Lybia- The dictator there has unveiled he possesses a secret WMD program and has invited the UN to aid him in dismantling it. He has shown he can be dealt with via words. Not a top priority target.
Momar made a deal with the USA so he can sell you cheap oil and Dubya can gloat!
Syria: A dangerous state. Controlled by the Fascist Baath party, extremely hostile to US forces in the region. A high priority target for Democratization. The Damascus government is a clear cut enemy
This is quite funny! The only reason you call Syria "dangerous" is because your Zionist masters don't like them so close! The Zionists were kicked out of southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah freedom fighters! This is the issue! Sure! They need "democracy" too! With large bombs from B-152s!
Turkey: Fairly irrelevant to this war.
Turkey will be the zionist-american axis of evil's next target after Iran, but by then, USA will have had a economic collapse and will it self be irrelevant!
Jordan: Nothing we need to worry about for now, they haven’t caused any immediate trouble since the Arab-Israeli wars.
Sure! As long as a illegitimate USA puppet clown king is in power!
Saudi Arabia- An enigma. Bush has been putting pressure on the House of Saud for three years, and has succeeded so far in getting local elections. It's more progress than anybody else have ever been able to make in world history, but it's not enough progress. Saudi Arabia must be dealt with carefully.
This is the Zionists real target, Because it is home of Islam!
Yemen-Irrelevant for now
Oman-Irrelevant for now.
Until they find lots of oil!
Bahrain-A strong ally.
Kuwait- A strong ally.
Qatar-A strong ally.
These are purchased despots with lots of oil!
The United Arab Emirates: Clearly an enemy, but not a powerful or relevant enough one for us to worry about right now.
Don't see what makes them a "clear enemy", they basically grovel to American requests!
Iran: Our single highest priority target. The Islamic Revolution in Iran has led the rise of Mideast Islamic Fundamentalism, and the rise of terrorist powers. Iran has expressed multiple times a desire to cover the Mideast region in a single Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy, led out of Tehran. Now we know from Ukrainian president Victor Yushenko that in the 1990s Iran purchased twelve Kh22 cruise missiles from the Ukraine. These missiles have a 3,000 mile range, fly too low to be detected by radar, and carry up to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. We know from the Iranians themselves that they have been purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia, as well as Missile-based artillery from China. The Iranians are the single most viciously anti-US state in the Middle East, and they are clearly preparing for war.
Fantastic! Don't know why its a coincidence, but it seems like when Ariel Sharon made his hit list, it was exactly what the right wing neocon lunatics had on their own hit lists! Iran is no threat, except perhaps Israel if Israel continues its barbaric ethnic cleansing on palestinians, but even with that, the likelihood of Iranian aggression is very very slim.
I believe that, preferably in about two years, the United States should strike at Iran. The state is ripe for change, with the vast majority of the populace being not only anti-Mullah but fairly pro Iran. In Iran we should not be forced into the kind of muddy nation-building we used in Iraq. I would support a policy in Iran of using select air support to aid in a Iranian revolution, then having the UN carefully monitor the rise of Iranian democracy. Should the UN fail, the US will be there to provide the fist behind international words.
Hold on! Why have the UN involved! Aren't they "corrupt"? If USA is stupid enough to get into a war in Iran, many things will happen:
1. They will lose in a massive guerrilla war
2. They will lose because USAs economy will collapse under the burden of debt, because the Chinese will not want to finance another zionist-american war!
Without Iran the Islamists will lose credibility. It is the Iranians that inspire the rhetoric, the tactics, and even the style of dress of international Wahabbists such as Osama Bin Laden. The Iranians must be defeated and soon. They are making an army and we don't know why.
America has lost all credibility, the zionists don't care, because they know that american's superpower status days are numbered, so they are trying to go all out, first with Iraq.....
Secondly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There must be a peaceful two state solution, plain and simple. If there is to be any credibility for the west among the greater arab populace there needs to be an independent state of Palestine. It would seem now that the Palestinians are prepared to work together for democracy more than ever before. The US should seize upon this and use international support to attempt a peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
There is one solution for Palestine: pre-1967 borders with no fanatic zionist settlers who target small palestinian children, who cut down orchards, who beat palestinians, who destroy palestinian crops with poison, who poison drinking wells!
Who started the 1967 six day war?
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html
Oh come now Os, there is nothing of substance here.
If you can't do better than say ITZ CUZ THE ZIONIZTZ ARE LIKE EVIL MATE! then just go sit in the corner. The grown ups are talking.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 24 2005, 06:28 PM)
Oh come now Os, there is nothing of substance here.
If you can't do better than say ITZ CUZ THE ZIONIZTZ ARE LIKE EVIL MATE! then just go sit in the corner. The grown ups are talking.
If you can't do better than say ITZ CUZ THE ZIONIZTZ ARE LIKE EVIL MATE! then just go sit in the corner. The grown ups are talking.
Sure there is "no substance" because it is not pro-israeli-american-right-wing propaganda, thats why!
Not at all. I have had many debates with Chomskyite Anti-Israelites who both
A.) Share your views on Israel
B.) Are savvy debaters
You however, do not offer evidence to back up anything you say, you just say it and then hurl insults at anyone who challenges you're ludicrous viewpoint.
The problem here is not your viewpoint Os, it's you.
A.) Share your views on Israel
B.) Are savvy debaters
You however, do not offer evidence to back up anything you say, you just say it and then hurl insults at anyone who challenges you're ludicrous viewpoint.
The problem here is not your viewpoint Os, it's you.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 24 2005, 10:13 PM)
Not at all. I have had many debates with Chomskyite Anti-Israelites who both
A.) Share your views on Israel
B.) Are savvy debaters
You however, do not offer evidence to back up anything you say, you just say it and then hurl insults at anyone who challenges you're ludicrous viewpoint.
The problem here is not your viewpoint Os, it's you.
A.) Share your views on Israel
B.) Are savvy debaters
You however, do not offer evidence to back up anything you say, you just say it and then hurl insults at anyone who challenges you're ludicrous viewpoint.
The problem here is not your viewpoint Os, it's you.
"Chomskyite", are you refering to Noam Chomsky? He is one of many jews who understands what the hell is going on. But you don't need to be a professor to put 2 and 2 together, to see how pro-israelis and their spys who are all over the Pentegon and other gov't locations, have manipuated the american minds already numb from the mass media, that tends to make those poor suckers even more dumb!
I will call you a Straussianist (Leo Strauss (a zionist jew), being the NEO-CON ideolgical godfather)... so there you go!
I don't need to offer evidence which is totally known and open. The problem is people like you don't want to know the truth, in order to maintain belief in your bankrupt ideology, which is a mixture of all of the bad political ideologies that have reared their ugly heads on this green earth!
QUOTE (OsManli @ Apr 24 2005, 06:09 PM)
"Chomskyite", are you refering to Noam Chomsky? He is one of many jews who understands what the hell is going on. But you don't need to be a professor to put 2 and 2 together, to see how pro-israelis and their spys who are all over the Pentegon and other gov't locations, have manipuated the american minds already numb from the mass media, that tends to make those poor suckers even more dumb!
I will call you a Straussianist (Leo Strauss (a zionist jew), being the NEO-CON ideolgical godfather)... so there you go!
I don't need to offer evidence which is totally known and open. The problem is people like you don't want to know the truth, in order to maintain belief in your bankrupt ideology, which is a mixture of all of the bad political ideologies that have reared their ugly heads on this green earth!
I will call you a Straussianist (Leo Strauss (a zionist jew), being the NEO-CON ideolgical godfather)... so there you go!
I don't need to offer evidence which is totally known and open. The problem is people like you don't want to know the truth, in order to maintain belief in your bankrupt ideology, which is a mixture of all of the bad political ideologies that have reared their ugly heads on this green earth!
A Chomskyite is one who follows the political ideology of Noam Chomsky.
I am well aware of who Leo Strauss is, and call me what you will. Unfortunatley the evidence you offer is not under any circumstances "totally known and open." It is fringe BS from loons who are like minded to yourself.
Either way, you still do have to back up your assertions. If you make an assertion, and cannot back it up with evidence, when asked to, then the assertion carries no weight.
Gimme a D! Gimme an E! Gimme an M! O.....C....R......A.......C......Y!!!!! What does that spell???? DEMOCRACY!!!!!! YEA!!!!!!
Youve been really big on the cheerleader joke lately.
Unsurprising. When one has no substansive argument, falling back on witless one liners is understandable.
Unsurprising. When one has no substansive argument, falling back on witless one liners is understandable.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 25 2005, 09:31 PM)
Youve been really big on the cheerleader joke lately.
Unsurprising. When one has no substansive argument, falling back on witless one liners is understandable.
Unsurprising. When one has no substansive argument, falling back on witless one liners is understandable.
Chucky never let a good thing go by without attempting to beat it to death first.
Put it down to message board fatigue. I'll be taking an extended break shortly.
(For the record the pic I posted to go with the DEMOCRACY chant was judged a bit too 'risque' for the board. Sorry Georgie.)
(For the record the pic I posted to go with the DEMOCRACY chant was judged a bit too 'risque' for the board. Sorry Georgie.)
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 25 2005, 04:08 AM)
A Chomskyite is one who follows the political ideology of Noam Chomsky.
I am well aware of who Leo Strauss is, and call me what you will. Unfortunatley the evidence you offer is not under any circumstances "totally known and open." It is fringe BS from loons who are like minded to yourself.
Either way, you still do have to back up your assertions. If you make an assertion, and cannot back it up with evidence, when asked to, then the assertion carries no weight.
I am well aware of who Leo Strauss is, and call me what you will. Unfortunatley the evidence you offer is not under any circumstances "totally known and open." It is fringe BS from loons who are like minded to yourself.
Either way, you still do have to back up your assertions. If you make an assertion, and cannot back it up with evidence, when asked to, then the assertion carries no weight.
So you are aware that the Straussian ideologs in power want to basically take over the world by over blowing a threat to ludicrous proportions?? (Rummy and his wild arm gestures)
More importantly who won this and the three other wars against Isreal?
The Truth:
What led to the Six Day War in 1967?
Terrorist Attacks on Israel
From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to the Six Day War in 1967.
In 1965, 35 terrorist raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.
The number of dangerous incidents on the Syrian border increased following Israel’s activation of the National Water Carrier from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev in 1964. Syria and the other Arab countries opposed the National Water Carrier project and tried to destroy it by diverting the tributaries of the Jordan river located in their territories; Israel bombed the diversion works in response. This tension came against the backdrop of the on-going border clashes along the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria, as Syria resisted Israel's attempts to increase use of the DMZ for Israeli agriculture. (The DMZ was the result of the terms of the Israel-Syria armistice signed on July 20, 1949.) Syria launched attacks on Israeli farmers cultivating land in the demilitarized zone and on Israeli fishing boats and other craft in the Sea of Galilee, shelling from the commanding Golan Heights that rise dramatically to the east of the border areas.
Military Provocation By Arab Countries and Soviet Disinformation
While Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate a peace with its neighbors, there was no matching sentiment on the Arab side. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:
We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.
A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:
... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.
Other Arab leaders from Syria, Jordan, and Iraq joined in the rhetoric and preparations for war, increasing pressure on Egypt's President Gamal Nasser, perceived as the leader of the Arab world. Syria's attacks along the DMZ grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966. Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Israel followed up by re-introducing military forces to the DMZ.
At the same time, and unknown to the Israelis, the Soviet Union mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel. At that time, the Soviets were providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt. On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2.
The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel. UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:
... have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line.
Nasser probably correctly interpreted the Soviet information as an indication to him that the time was ripe for an attack on Israel and that he had their backing. With the United States deeply distracted by the War in Vietnam, the Soviets had reason to think there would be no US intervention. Nassar then abandoned his former cautious policy and took the lead for new aggression against Israel. Syria and Iraq eagerly joined Egypt's preparations, increasing the momentum toward war.
On May 15, Israel's 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. The UN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran
In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Nonetheless, on on the night of May 22-23, 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly:
The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.
Final Blows Lead to War
There is evidence that Egypt was warned by the US and the Soviet Union in late May 1967 that war should be avoided, but by then the momentum to war was unstoppable.
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, under which Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. He had little choice since Jordan housed 700,000 Palestinian Arabs whose rioting in November 1966 almost brought down Hussein's government. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:
The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. 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.
Armed forces in the Arab countries were mobilized. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.
Israeli forces had been on high alert during the three weeks of tension which began on May 15, 1967 when it became known that Egypt had concentrated large-scale forces in the Sinai peninsula, an alert status Israel could not maintain indefinitely. The country could not accept interdiction of its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel had no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel had to achieve surprise, not wait for an Arab invasion, a potential catastrophic situation. On June 4, the Cabinet authorized the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence to decide on appropriate steps to defend the State of Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to196...xday_backgd.php
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/six.../SixDayWar.html
Similarly. the Judean Christian bond and covenant will never be broken by force or the will of those that would like to break it.
To get the entire west bank and Jerusalem back from Israel someone is going to have to take by force of arms. Have any ideas as to who that will be Oslami?
That is all!
QUOTE
Who started the 1967 six day war?
The Truth:
What led to the Six Day War in 1967?
Terrorist Attacks on Israel
From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to the Six Day War in 1967.
In 1965, 35 terrorist raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.
The number of dangerous incidents on the Syrian border increased following Israel’s activation of the National Water Carrier from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev in 1964. Syria and the other Arab countries opposed the National Water Carrier project and tried to destroy it by diverting the tributaries of the Jordan river located in their territories; Israel bombed the diversion works in response. This tension came against the backdrop of the on-going border clashes along the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria, as Syria resisted Israel's attempts to increase use of the DMZ for Israeli agriculture. (The DMZ was the result of the terms of the Israel-Syria armistice signed on July 20, 1949.) Syria launched attacks on Israeli farmers cultivating land in the demilitarized zone and on Israeli fishing boats and other craft in the Sea of Galilee, shelling from the commanding Golan Heights that rise dramatically to the east of the border areas.
Military Provocation By Arab Countries and Soviet Disinformation
While Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate a peace with its neighbors, there was no matching sentiment on the Arab side. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:
We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.
A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:
... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.
Other Arab leaders from Syria, Jordan, and Iraq joined in the rhetoric and preparations for war, increasing pressure on Egypt's President Gamal Nasser, perceived as the leader of the Arab world. Syria's attacks along the DMZ grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966. Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Israel followed up by re-introducing military forces to the DMZ.
At the same time, and unknown to the Israelis, the Soviet Union mounted a disinformation campaign pushing Egypt to join Syria against Israel. At that time, the Soviets were providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt. On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2.
The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel. UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:
... have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line.
Nasser probably correctly interpreted the Soviet information as an indication to him that the time was ripe for an attack on Israel and that he had their backing. With the United States deeply distracted by the War in Vietnam, the Soviets had reason to think there would be no US intervention. Nassar then abandoned his former cautious policy and took the lead for new aggression against Israel. Syria and Iraq eagerly joined Egypt's preparations, increasing the momentum toward war.
On May 15, Israel's 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. The UN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran
In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State's right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, any blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. Nonetheless, on on the night of May 22-23, 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly:
The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.
Final Blows Lead to War
There is evidence that Egypt was warned by the US and the Soviet Union in late May 1967 that war should be avoided, but by then the momentum to war was unstoppable.
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, under which Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. He had little choice since Jordan housed 700,000 Palestinian Arabs whose rioting in November 1966 almost brought down Hussein's government. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:
The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. 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.
Armed forces in the Arab countries were mobilized. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.
Israeli forces had been on high alert during the three weeks of tension which began on May 15, 1967 when it became known that Egypt had concentrated large-scale forces in the Sinai peninsula, an alert status Israel could not maintain indefinitely. The country could not accept interdiction of its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel had no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel had to achieve surprise, not wait for an Arab invasion, a potential catastrophic situation. On June 4, the Cabinet authorized the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence to decide on appropriate steps to defend the State of Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to196...xday_backgd.php
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/six.../SixDayWar.html
Similarly. the Judean Christian bond and covenant will never be broken by force or the will of those that would like to break it.
To get the entire west bank and Jerusalem back from Israel someone is going to have to take by force of arms. Have any ideas as to who that will be Oslami?
That is all!
QUOTE (OsManli @ Apr 25 2005, 08:09 PM)
So you are aware that the Straussian ideologs in power want to basically take over the world by over blowing a threat to ludicrous proportions?? (Rummy and his wild arm gestures)
I said I was aware of who Leo Strauss was, not who your twisted crazed mind paints him as.
Either way I am not a Straussian, I am a NeoWilsonian
In response to ustrader, Quite simply Egypt and Syria started the Six Day War.
Nasser publiclly announced he intended to invade and dissolve Israel weeks before the war started, and Syria had been shelling Northern Israel with Artillery for weeks before the war began.
Then Israel proceeded to kick all their asses!
Number one reason why I respect Israel:
They don't give a d@mn what Europe thinks.
Instead of politicking when Iraq was developing its nuke program, they bombed the he11 out of it. Let's hope they do the same to Iran.
They don't give a d@mn what Europe thinks.
Instead of politicking when Iraq was developing its nuke program, they bombed the he11 out of it. Let's hope they do the same to Iran.
Israel has publically announced that, should Euro-Iranian negotiations fail, they will do just that.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 26 2005, 08:53 PM)
Israel has publically announced that, should Euro-Iranian negotiations fail, they will do just that.
Who started the 1967 war? Take it from the jew's mouth:
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
I thought you were expecting us to take it from the "slightly unbalanced" Turk's mouth. 
QUOTE (OsManli @ Apr 26 2005, 02:04 PM)
Who started the 1967 war? Take it from the jew's mouth:
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Here are some quotes from Nasser before the Six Day War started. He was spinning these quotes while Israel was at the UN pleading to negotiate:
""There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire."
"People do not want words - they want the sound of battle - the battle of destiny."
While I am quite sure these quotes give Os quite the big rubbery one, they do indicate that Egypt had no desire for peace.
Coupled with the facts that the Pan-Arab coalition had been threatening to invade Israel for weeks, Syria had been shelling Northern Israel for weeks before the war started, and that Syrian forces began to move against the Golan Heights before the war even officially began, I can hardly blame Israel.
Sorry Os, but other than the fact that Israel actually fired the first shot, there is absolutely no case to say that Israel started the Six Day War.
Hell, Israel didn't even do that much. The first shots were fired by Syrian Artillerymen, shelling Israeli farms weeks before the war actually broke out.
But then again, this viewpoint would disagree with your own.
Therefore it is propaganda.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 27 2005, 01:06 AM)
Here are some quotes from Nasser before the Six Day War started. He was spinning these quotes while Israel was at the UN pleading to negotiate:
""There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire."
"People do not want words - they want the sound of battle - the battle of destiny."
While I am quite sure these quotes give Os quite the big rubbery one, they do indicate that Egypt had no desire for peace.
Coupled with the facts that the Pan-Arab coalition had been threatening to invade Israel for weeks, Syria had been shelling Northern Israel for weeks before the war started, and that Syrian forces began to move against the Golan Heights before the war even officially began, I can hardly blame Israel.
Sorry Os, but other than the fact that Israel actually fired the first shot, there is absolutely no case to say that Israel started the Six Day War.
Hell, Israel didn't even do that much. The first shots were fired by Syrian Artillerymen, shelling Israeli farms weeks before the war actually broke out.
But then again, this viewpoint would disagree with your own.
Therefore it is propaganda.
""There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire."
"People do not want words - they want the sound of battle - the battle of destiny."
While I am quite sure these quotes give Os quite the big rubbery one, they do indicate that Egypt had no desire for peace.
Coupled with the facts that the Pan-Arab coalition had been threatening to invade Israel for weeks, Syria had been shelling Northern Israel for weeks before the war started, and that Syrian forces began to move against the Golan Heights before the war even officially began, I can hardly blame Israel.
Sorry Os, but other than the fact that Israel actually fired the first shot, there is absolutely no case to say that Israel started the Six Day War.
Hell, Israel didn't even do that much. The first shots were fired by Syrian Artillerymen, shelling Israeli farms weeks before the war actually broke out.
But then again, this viewpoint would disagree with your own.
Therefore it is propaganda.
Benny Mr-T;
You can't change the facts that israel attacked airbases in Egypt, an Syria before any arab army "attacked israel"
So benny, you can't make black into white, or say that "Saddamy HAS WMDs"- pre March 2003, then turn around and say "Saddamy INTENDED to have WMDs"-post Mar 2003, as if USA read Saddamy's mind!
This is 100% right wing-zionist-jewish spin-doctoring.
I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs before the war.
Remember, ASSUME makes an A S S out of U and ME
I didn't deny Israel struck first. After being attacked two previous times by the Pan-Arab Coalition, Israel smartly took threats of attack from said Coalition seriously.
Israeli War of Independence- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel the day after it becomes independent
Suez War- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel
Six Day War- Pan Arab Coalition makes multiple threats to invade Israel. Syria begins shelling Northern Israel. Egypt masses it's armies in Sinai. Nasser gives a speech in which he says that his troops will enter Israel with the sand bathed in Jewish blood.
Israel takes the Pan-Arab Coalition seriously, and strikes.
Everything you say is 100% Anti-Semitic Spin Doctoring.
Remember, ASSUME makes an A S S out of U and ME
I didn't deny Israel struck first. After being attacked two previous times by the Pan-Arab Coalition, Israel smartly took threats of attack from said Coalition seriously.
Israeli War of Independence- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel the day after it becomes independent
Suez War- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel
Six Day War- Pan Arab Coalition makes multiple threats to invade Israel. Syria begins shelling Northern Israel. Egypt masses it's armies in Sinai. Nasser gives a speech in which he says that his troops will enter Israel with the sand bathed in Jewish blood.
Israel takes the Pan-Arab Coalition seriously, and strikes.
Everything you say is 100% Anti-Semitic Spin Doctoring.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Apr 27 2005, 04:14 AM)
I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs before the war.
Remember, ASSUME makes an A S S out of U and ME
I didn't deny Israel struck first. After being attacked two previous times by the Pan-Arab Coalition, Israel smartly took threats of attack from said Coalition seriously.
Israeli War of Independence- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel the day after it becomes independent
Suez War- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel
Six Day War- Pan Arab Coalition makes multiple threats to invade Israel. Syria begins shelling Northern Israel. Egypt masses it's armies in Sinai. Nasser gives a speech in which he says that his troops will enter Israel with the sand bathed in Jewish blood.
Israel takes the Pan-Arab Coalition seriously, and strikes.
Everything you say is 100% Anti-Semitic Spin Doctoring.
Remember, ASSUME makes an A S S out of U and ME
I didn't deny Israel struck first. After being attacked two previous times by the Pan-Arab Coalition, Israel smartly took threats of attack from said Coalition seriously.
Israeli War of Independence- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel the day after it becomes independent
Suez War- Pan-Arab Coalition Invades Israel
Six Day War- Pan Arab Coalition makes multiple threats to invade Israel. Syria begins shelling Northern Israel. Egypt masses it's armies in Sinai. Nasser gives a speech in which he says that his troops will enter Israel with the sand bathed in Jewish blood.
Israel takes the Pan-Arab Coalition seriously, and strikes.
Everything you say is 100% Anti-Semitic Spin Doctoring.
Just like NAZI PROPOGANDA. That's all his derranged diatribe here consists of, freedom hating NAZI PROPOGANDA.
QUOTE (OsManli @ Apr 25 2005, 08:09 PM)
So you are aware that the Straussian ideologs in power want to basically take over the world by over blowing a threat to ludicrous proportions?? (Rummy and his wild arm gestures)
Nothing in Straussian philosophy advocates ANYONE taking over the world. Very much an anti globalist. MARK
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.