Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on January 23, 2006, 05:24:48 am
-
Well, the Israeli minister of defense sez that Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. A decisive response is planned.
A "pre-emptive" strike?
Hell, who do the Israelis (and Us..and the whole EU for that matter) think they are to try to dictate to other what they can or cannot build in their own yard?
My problem with them is that they speak with that arrogant tone of moral highground and devine right - as they are hte only one wo can wield such power, and anyone they don't like is a "menace", a "danger to the free world" and MUST be stopped.
Yes, the Iran president is a nutjob, but he's a elected and legitimate nutjob and his country has every rgith to build whatever structures or weapons it wants.
[sandy]Spelling corrected in title.[/sandy]
-
Iran has said a bunch of times that it will bomb Israel into the ground the first chance it gets.
If I was a bible-nut, I'd be pointing out that all of this is eerily similar to the Armageddon prophecies right about now....
-
depends on your definition of "elected"
-
Well, the Israeli minister of defense sez that Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. A decisive response is planned.
A "pre-emptive" strike?
Hell, who do the Israelis (and Us..and the whole EU for that matter) think they are to try to dictate to other what they can or cannot build in their own yard?
My problem with them is that they speak with that arrogant tone of moral highground and devine right - as they are hte only one wo can wield such power, and anyone they don't like is a "menace", a "danger to the free world" and MUST be stopped.
Yes, the Iran president is a nutjob, but he's a elected and legitimate nutjob and his country has every rgith to build whatever structures or weapons it wants.
To be fair, when he's made statements to the effect that 'Israel must be wiped off the map', you can understand them getting a little tetchy as the potential of him having WMD. It's worth nothing, as FireCrack did, that the elections in Iran aren't exactly free and fair; the religious council pick and choose the candidates allowed to stand, for one thing (so any reformist can be quickly removed); even if the voting was open and democratic, you still don't get a free choice of candidates.
Israel will not, though, invade Iran. Their elite 69th squadron is reportedly planning for possible attacks upon Iranian nuclear facilities, though.
-
Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.
Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?
-
Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.
Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?
Albeit, to many in the Muslim world that statement just seems racist; from their perspective, the only reason given is because Iran is an Islamic nation. And to a degree they have a point; the countries that are asking for disarmament (assuming Iran does intend to build weapons, of course) are Christian, Western countries, ones that are generally hostile to Iran anyways, and which have been involved in far more aggressive wars (i.e. attacking rather than defending) than Iran over recent history (particularly the US). The problem is that claimed moral superiority counts for little, because very few countries have the evidence to back it up.
-
i think it would be cool if israel started nuking things, but thats just cause im a total fatalist about humanity and all. but if israel nukes one arab nation i thing the will suddenly be in a state of war with every arab country in the middle east. and i dont think a nuclear asonal will stop them from invading. i think if nukes are alaunched, the middle east will be a smoldering ruin for the next few millinea. maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot. im personally waiting for the east and west to destroy itself and return the earth to its proper owners in the north, the vikings.
-
i think it would be cool if israel started nuking things, but thats just cause im a total fatalist about humanity and all. but if israel nukes one arab nation i thing the will suddenly be in a state of war with every arab country in the middle east. and i dont think a nuclear asonal will stop them from invading. i think if nukes are alaunched, the middle east will be a smoldering ruin for the next few millinea. maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot. im personally waiting for the east and west to destroy itself and return the earth to its proper owners in the north, the vikings.
:wtf: ...
I think of one nuke is launched too many will be in responce, and thus 99% of the world is screwed. But AFAICT ww3 will not be a nuclear armogedon. Few if any nukes will be used. Cause if the whole world is nuked over, i dont see the biblical armegedon being able to take place.
-
The Biblical Armageddon is not going to "take place"; Revelation is a very sensitive book, and, thanks mostly to Left Behind, people think that Armageddon will be a series of events at the end of the world. Chances are it won't be--most of the things happening in the book are happening now or have happened. But that's another discussion for another time.
It's no mystery that Israel has done this sort of thing in the past. They've proved to be capable of doing this with the attack on the Osiraq reactor in 1981, and I don't think they will hesitate to do it again.
-
The only nations capable of making a reasoned decision in regards to who should have nuclear weapons are France, Britain and Germany.
They're the only 3 nations with the technology, a history of warfare stretching back thousands of years, experience in the worst horrors of war and liberal enough ideals to consider the matter impartially. As well as the economic and military might needed to enforce their decisions.
And I think they should just adopt a 'nuclear holocaust' attitude. If Iran attacks anyone with nuclear weapons, they get turned into one huge crater - regardless of the loss of civillian life or the affect on neighbouring countries.
-
Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.
Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?
I don't trust no one with nukes.
But if the US and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?
And yes, Ahmejad said that Israel should be wiped off the planet (his opinion), but he didin't say he would do it. Just as many people say X or Y should be killed/hanged/shot to the moon...
He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..
-
maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot.
You actually want somone to nuke Vatican?
Dude you're not a fatalist - you're sick. :wtf:
-
maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot.
You actually want somone to nuke Vatican?
Dude you're not a fatalist - you're sick. :wtf:
duh :D
-
Iran has said a bunch of times that it will bomb Israel into the ground the first chance it gets.
If I was a bible-nut, I'd be pointing out that all of this is eerily similar to the Armageddon prophecies right about now....
I would actually have to agree with on that. It does sound eerily similiar now that I think about it. It could easily take place in the coming century, if not decade. Then again, people have been saying that for thousands of years and still have been wrong...so ya never know.
Entire MiddleEast invading israel = some massive engagement somewhere near armageddon
-
The Biblical Armageddon is not going to "take place"; Revelation is a very sensitive book, and, thanks mostly to Left Behind, people think that Armageddon will be a series of events at the end of the world. Chances are it won't be--most of the things happening in the book are happening now or have happened. But that's another discussion for another time.
It's no mystery that Israel has done this sort of thing in the past. They've proved to be capable of doing this with the attack on the Osiraq reactor in 1981, and I don't think they will hesitate to do it again.
I say it will happen. Everything the bible says will happen. But make sure to interpet the intent of the passages and context surronding them. And IMHO Left Behind should be continued in the movie industry and finished. Good movie's they were.
-
:wtf: ...
I think of one nuke is launched too many will be in responce, and thus 99% of the world is screwed. But AFAICT ww3 will not be a nuclear armogedon. Few if any nukes will be used. Cause if the whole world is nuked over, i dont see the biblical armegedon being able to take place.
I believe there is a historical opinion is that the biblical armageddon as described in Revelations is an allegory for Nero and his persecution of the Christians. In any case, it'd be rather dodgy to assume it literally, because there's more than a few things in the bible purporting to be historical documents that are literally false.
I don't trust no one with nukes.
But if the US and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?
And yes, Ahmejad said that Israel should be wiped off the planet (his opinion), but he didin't say he would do it. Just as many people say X or Y should be killed/hanged/shot to the moon...
He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..
Albeit X and Y don't have a large army and happen to run a fairly totalitarian dictatorship.
Personally, I think Iran shouldn't have nukes; the leadership there is too unaccountable to the people who'd be hurt by war, and ruled by the leadership of (fundamentalist) religion and all the irrational hatred that stems forth. That's not to say I think the US and UK (etc) aren't hypocrites; we have the perfect opportunity here to not only make a moral point but also save billions, all we have to do is cancel the refit of Trident and decomission it instead. Given that neither the UK nor any 'sane' country has a first strike policy for nuclear weapons, they're largely useless; any point they'd be used would be after defeat.
-
Zechariah 12:1-3...
This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.
:)
-
He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..
The Hamas would never send a suicide bomber. Israel has more tanks anyway..
As I'm sure you can see, such reasoning doesn't always work.
Zechariah 12:1-3...
This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.
:)
Iran: Israel should be wiped off the map!!
God: Pwn3d.
-
I know a lot of people have fun with the "Oh, the evil U.S. has nukes and used them in war, how dare they dictate who can develop their own."
See, it's not just us who want to reign in the insanity (that we created, I know). it's every established nuclear power. Everyone knows what they are sitting on.
But, keep in mind. We've been sitting on one of the biggest (next to Russia and China) stockpiles since the late 1940's and we haven't used them. We know it only takes one to knock over everybody. Say what you will about our agressive, arrogant, and unwarranted approaches to foreign policy, but we simply will not fire first.
The only military advantage provided by nuclear weapons is against those with nuclear weapons. Detente. We, and the other nuclear powers have proven we can be responsible with what we have and not use them 'off the cuff'.
On the flipside I can certainly understand why some nations wouldn't trust us.
I know full well that the attitude of the Iranian president does not represent the attitude of every person in his country. I certainly hope this can be worked out without resorting to battle. There's been enough of that going around.
-
*sneaks out of Lurking*
To be honest, I agree that Iran has no right to have nuclear technology. I am of the opinion that France, Germany, Russia, the US, Britain, and other nations that already have nukes DO have to right to bully other nations out of gaining nukes. If another nation is added to the nuke list, one who is politically set against those who already have them, then the current balance will be broken, and all hell will break loose. I applaud any efforts, Israeli led or otherwise, to keep this balance from being upset.
To keep being honest, I'm not very worried about North Korea and its nukes. North Korea has its own self-interest at heart. Iran, however, only wants to hurt its enemies. This is a dangerous thing.
A nuclear-armed Iran simply can't be tolerated. Why? They could hurt me, and its all about me! After all, government is designed for one thing, to keep itself in power. If they fail to protect me, they get ousted. If Iran gets nukes, I haven't been protected.
And now I will end this rant of random, unconnect thoughts.
-
If Iran comes under the US or Israeli influence, chalk up another score for the Zionists.
-
I say it will happen. Everything the bible says will happen. But make sure to interpet the intent of the passages and context surronding them. And IMHO Left Behind should be continued in the movie industry and finished. Good movie's they were.
You really did miss the whole point of what I said. Everything that has been said in Revelation is mainly based on things that would have happened in the near future of when John was writing or had already happened. The Four Horsemen are particularly representative of this--War, Disease, Pestilence, and Famine are already common conditions in society, and they were released when the world was said to have fallen into sin. Also consider the Battle of Armageddon itself, where the servants of evil will surround the holy city and attack, yet be instantly repulsed by the forces of God--is this not symbolic of evil all around the Christians the world who are said to be defended by their God continually?
I could go on and on (especially about the seven heads of the Beast representing the seven Roman hills and the horns representing coming Roman Emperors), but, like I said, another discussion for another time.
-
But if the US and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?
:sigh: moral relativism :rolleyes:
Iran signed the NPT so they can't have nukes.
If they want nukes they must leave the NPT.
Saying that you're doing it for peaceful purposes whileeveloping nuclear 'power' in secret (while the NPT stipulates that nations have the right to develop nuclear power) is not a way to make others trust you. Declining a deal whereby another nations would provide (sell) you with the enriched uranium you need is not a sign of wanting to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes only, especailly if you consider that the only nations doing uranium enrichment are all nuclear powers. Having a president that states that Israel should be wiped off the map and states that the holocaust is a european-zionist conspiracy is also not a good way to engender trust, especially coupled to the fact that the country of said president is notorious for sponsering terrorist groups that strike against Israel.
Israel (iirc) developed its nukes (assuming they have them since it is still not confirmed :p) before the NPT so they're entitled to have them. India and Pakistan were not, iirc, signatories to the NPT so they're entitled to have them.
We're the West, that's why! :yes:
-----------
And Revelations is 1st Century Science-Fiction written by a bunch of druggies. But be glad, it could have been written by Hubbard. :D :p
-----------
BTW, Israel is never, ever again going to trust the defence of the jewish people to others. And reasonably so.
-
I could go on and on (especially about the seven heads of the Beast representing the seven Roman hills and the horns representing coming Roman Emperors), but, like I said, another discussion for another time.
Or the seven continents of the Earth, but as you said another discussion for another time.
-
Or the seven continents of the Earth, but as you said another discussion for another time.
Good point as well, but, being the agnostic that I am, I still believe in the Rome theory, as that is what John knew of at the time.
(Still, another discussion for another time)
-
But, keep in mind. We've been sitting on one of the biggest (next to Russia and China) stockpiles since the late 1940's and we haven't used them. We know it only takes one to knock over everybody. Say what you will about our agressive, arrogant, and unwarranted approaches to foreign policy, but we simply will not fire first.
*Points at Bush and his nuclear bunker busters.*
Still think that it wasn't the plan?
-
Haven't the DoD put down operational guidelines for the (justification for the) use of nuclear weapons that include against overwhelming enemy forces or in the face of a losing battle?
-
Before Iraq gets mentioned as such a "losing battle," I'd like to throw in my two cents on the matter. I would think that DoD would put forth this proposal not in the face of a defeat overseas in a conflict such as Vietnam/Iraq/Korea, but in the event of an actual invasion of the United States or the inevitability of such an attack (like Red Dawn, par exampla).
-
Before Iraq gets mentioned as such a "losing battle," I'd like to throw in my two cents on the matter. I would think that DoD would put forth this proposal not in the face of a defeat overseas in a conflict such as Vietnam/Iraq/Korea, but in the event of an actual invasion of the United States or the inevitability of such an attack (like Red Dawn, par exampla).
I think it refers to a US field unit being overrun by a far larger enemy force, such as might occur if the US were to invade Iran, N.Korea or China (with their possible use of human 'wave' tactics).
Having checked, there was a draft doctrine (now pulled) that authorised/suggested the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a planned WMD strike on US or civillian targets that could not be stopped by conventional forces, or against otherwise indestructable biological weapons. There are rumours (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html) Rumsfeld authorised a 'Interim Global Strike Alert Order' in 2004 that included planning for first strike nuclear attacks upon Iran or North Korea (due to the ineffectiveness of 'shock and awe' in Iraq). Reportedly John Bolton, the US' ambassador to the UN, is a driving force behind an abandonment of the no first strike policy.
-
But if the US and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?
:sigh: moral relativism :rolleyes:
Iran signed the NPT so they can't have nukes.
If they want nukes they must leave the NPT.
Saying that you're doing it for peaceful purposes whileeveloping nuclear 'power' in secret (while the NPT stipulates that nations have the right to develop nuclear power) is not a way to make others trust you. Declining a deal whereby another nations would provide (sell) you with the enriched uranium you need is not a sign of wanting to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes only, especailly if you consider that the only nations doing uranium enrichment are all nuclear powers. Having a president that states that Israel should be wiped off the map and states that the holocaust is a european-zionist conspiracy is also not a good way to engender trust, especially coupled to the fact that the country of said president is notorious for sponsering terrorist groups that strike against Israel.
Israel (iirc) developed its nukes (assuming they have them since it is still not confirmed :p) before the NPT so they're entitled to have them. India and Pakistan were not, iirc, signatories to the NPT so they're entitled to have them.
We're the West, that's why! :yes:
i do hope that's sarcasm, otherwise, Nuclear weapons have this allure of a big shiny saber to rattle at your enemies, like 'invade me country, and i'll vaporise you with a cleansing atomic fire" or some such ****e, this is what kept the cold war like it was, mutually assured destruction, both east and west were rattling their own nuclear weapons like babies with a rattle.. the only difference between the west, and those countries that are newly joining "the nuclear club" is that the US, russia, GB, france, etc have had the funds to actively test them, and accurately measure their destructive force, that, and they'd most likely be less trigger happy than, say the US..
as i see it, the big western countries want to keep the status quo of their own impressive arsenal of WMD's, when everybody has one, then the mutally assured destruction factor would kick in for all involved, they nuke us, we nuke them, somebody else nukes us.... mind you, what happens when everybody has 'The bomb" ?... that's right, somebody will up and redefine the term, and come up with something just as cataclysmic.
long story short, nuclear = power, no matter how you use it, for electricity, pretty much literal, for weapons, political power, or ire, depending on which end of it you're on.
given how the UN was pretty much built around the global threat of nuclear weapons during the post-ww2 years & the cold war, it's rather unfortunate that these days, they haven't got much clout beyond the odd economical embargo.
-
Also consider the Battle of Armageddon itself, where the servants of evil will surround the holy city and attack, yet be instantly repulsed by the forces of God--is this not symbolic of evil all around the Christians the world who are said to be defended by their God continually?
Is that part of Replacement Theology? :doubt:
Anyway, there are soo many parts in the book of Revelation that just don't make sense no matter how you look at it that I don't see how anyone could think that it's all been fulfilled. I certainly don't see that cube- or sphere-shaped (or not...) New Jerusalem anywhere, do you?
*poke*
Nope, definitely old, earthly Jerusalem. ;)
-
Nope, definitely old, earthly Jerusalem. ;)
or dusty, whichever time of the year it is :p
-
I certainly don't see that cube- or sphere-shaped (or not...) New Jerusalem anywhere, do you?
Or pyramidal. I once read an article where somebody conjectured that the pyramids in Egypt were an attempt by certain "powers and principalities" to reproduce heaven on earth -- albeit at a vastly inferior scale. ;)
-
don't forget bout the russians...there the ones thats selling their stuff....hell we don't want to get involve with this matter.....mostly the iranian ppl are ready to take over there own gov...but the problem with that is....they can't do it.....if we (the U.S.) are going to war against iran...we'll have the rest of the arabs on our side...well beside syria
-
Or pyramidal. I once read an article where somebody conjectured that the pyramids in Egypt were an attempt by certain "powers and principalities" to reproduce heaven on earth -- albeit at a vastly inferior scale. ;)
Ahh, quite possible. Now that I think about it, a sphere wouldn't be logical, since it's reported to have 4 sides, with 3 gates on each side. So a cube or a pyramid would both work. Hmm.
-
Or pyramidal. I once read an article where somebody conjectured that the pyramids in Egypt were an attempt by certain "powers and principalities" to reproduce heaven on earth -- albeit at a vastly inferior scale. ;)
Ahh, quite possible. Now that I think about it, a sphere wouldn't be logical, since it's reported to have 4 sides, with 3 gates on each side. So a cube or a pyramid would both work. Hmm.
(Warning! Obscure Starsiege reference!)
Remind me to not build Nova Alexandria anywhere near Israel :p
-
don't forget bout the russians...there the ones thats selling their stuff....hell we don't want to get involve with this matter.....mostly the iranian ppl are ready to take over there own gov...but the problem with that is....they can't do it.....if we (the U.S.) are going to war against iran...we'll have the rest of the arabs on our side...well beside syria
Umm... what? Please elaborate...
-
Is that part of Replacement Theology? :doubt:
Not sure where I learned it from. It's a conservative Lutheran interpretation, methinks, but then again, I'm agnostic, so I don't particularly believe the whole thing anyway. :blah:
-
don't forget bout the russians...there the ones thats selling their stuff....hell we don't want to get involve with this matter.....mostly the iranian ppl are ready to take over there own gov...but the problem with that is....they can't do it.....if we (the U.S.) are going to war against iran...we'll have the rest of the arabs on our side...well beside syria
Umm... what? Please elaborate...
I think he's mentioning Russia selling nuclear technology to Iran (which is true; the Russians have taken up building the reactor and also have offered to do the enrichment in order to break the current deadlock), assuming the Iranian people are ready and willing to launch a revolution and topple the theocracy (which is kind of hard to judge, especially as there's nothing like exterior threats to unite a country), and that most of the bordering states would support the US in a war on Iran (which is complete tosh; aside from religious, cultural, regional and racial solidarity, they don't want another Iraq-type situation on their borders, spreading chaos and acting as a training ground for fundamentalists to return and try and start a fundamentalist revolution).
-
if we (the U.S.) are going to war against iran...we'll have the rest of the arabs on our side...well beside syria
Iranians aren't Arabs.
-
Of course the real irony in this is that the CIA gave the Iranians the plans for a nuclear weapon about 4 or 5 years ago.
I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the ****ing arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the **** out of em. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane... Throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun". "Mister, I don't want no trouble huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom boom "You all saw him. He had a gun."
-
if we (the U.S.) are going to war against iran...we'll have the rest of the arabs on our side...well beside syria
Iranians aren't Arabs.
Thats right...I think the vast majority of the population are ethnically Persians. In the end its all really the same as far as physical human beings go. Its just the culture and a few traits that get passed down from generation to generation that separates us but don't go telling that to people... (we're all the same bloody genetic code really).
I know its sort of hippocritical for the western nations to be wanting Iran to be nuclear free but when you look at the situation directly then you understand what the reasoning is. Iran is very much run by a dictatorship and a religious fundamentalist one at that. The normal underpinnings of protecting your people and advancing your nation sort of fall by the wayside if your only understanding is religion and something is religiously motivating. I'm not really pointing a finger at any religion either. The same would be true regardless of religion...and the same could be said of someone with no religion as well.
So when you have a leader who says in one breath that Israel should be wipped off the map and in the other breath is trying to build nuclear technology (whatever it may be for) you worry and thats a fairly legitimate grievance. Hopefully it never comes to it...but I half expect that if the crisis continues, someone is going to launch an airstrike to prevent a further larger disaster from occuring.
-
Not only are they not Arabs, Persians generally don't think much of Arabs and don't consider them to be a legitimate culture, or barbarians at best. Or so my Iranian friend tells me. Which is kind of justified, given that Persia had civilization way back in the day. Which is probably why you haven't seen more unity in the Middle-East. Not only do you havr the Shia and Sunnis hating on each other, you also have Arabs, Persians and a whole ton of other tribes who have no great love for each other.
-
Kurds too?
-
Yup, everybody hates eachother. Everyone claims that the others aren't legitimate and they were there first.
-
Ok but is there a difference between that sort of thing and the rampant European nationalism that has been in place until maybe only very recently (and I'll question that too). All of the wars fought over the last 500 years in Europe by European states...
Is there some sort of more fundamental difference or is ther hope that they too can pull out of this mess eventually.