[Jabu]

Yah, welcome back anyway  

[The Claw]

Yeah dude, welcome back  

[Fineus]

 

Originally posted by Jabu:
Yah, welcome back anyway  

[Darkage]

I think the fighting is back because of the dumbass a$$hole bush.If you folow the news then you can see and notice it.Clinton was the one that wanted peace between them and he almost succeeded.But when bush became president it whent down hill whit the peace conference's becuase that A$$hole only cares about that damm missile shield that has no use. I think he messed up all the hadr work Clinton did.All though i am Dutch i think Cliton is the MAN!!  

[edit]
Welcome back dude!
[/edit]
------------------
                   
------------------
                       [email protected]                     Staff member of
SOC Inferno,
can you defeat
the shivans?  
Soc Inferno
Project Rebellion
iqc 102628858

[This message has been edited by darkage (edited 08-23-2001).]

[Mad Bomber]

Welcome back!  


You know what i'm surprised the Palestinians haven't tried? Nonviolent protests.

Think about it. It's worked for everyone who's ever used it in the past; Gandhi, King, etc. The only real exception is Tianeman Square in China.

But, instead, they feel they have to resort to violence to solve anything. I don't blame them; it's really the only thing they've known since the end of WW2 and the creation of Israel. I'm sure some of them believe in the "glory of martyrdom" and "slaughtering the infidels", etc, but some of them are just using that as an excuse to try to get some land for themselves.

In resorting to violence, the Palestinians give themselves a bad image, as do the Israelis by retaliating with such force. Things aren't going to get better there until cooler heads prevail. Unfortunately, at this rate many of those cool heads will have bullets in them.  

[Sandwich]

 

Originally posted by darkage:
I think the fighting is back because of the dumbass a$$hole bush.If you folow the news then you can see and notice it.Clinton was the one that wanted peace between them and he almost succeeded.But when bush became president it whent down hill whit the peace conference's becuase that A$$hole only cares about that damm missile shield that has no use. I think he messed up all the hadr work Clinton did.All though i am Dutch i think Cliton is the MAN!!  

Welcome back dude!  

Pardon me for disagreeing. The fighting here started last fall; Clinton left office in late winter.

My personal opinon about Clinton is far from yours, but that's ok.   I see him as someone who kept trying to force us (Israel) into giving up our land, our strategic positions (Golan Heights), etc etc.

At the moment, not many people here appreciate what Barak did in the name of "peace" - offering Arafat nearly everything. However, in hindsight, there was some good that came out of it all: it proved to the world (at least to anyone who cared to open his/her eyes and see) that Arafat wants neither land nor peace.

Let's be realistic here: Islam does not tolerate Jews. Therefore Muslims will stop at nothing to try and wipe us off the map. And in a way, I don't blame them. I mean hey, if I had been brought up like they are, I would probably be doing the same thing. :-/

In short, no matter how much they may scream about their "holy land", etc - it ain't about the land. It's about the people.  

 

Originally posted by Mad Bomber:
In resorting to violence, the Palestinians give themselves a bad image, as do the Israelis by retaliating with such force. Things aren't going to get better there until cooler heads prevail. Unfortunately, at this rate many of those cool heads will have bullets in them.  

International image is always smeared when violence is used. Or is it? Allow me to quote a bit of my parents newsletter:
 

The world pressures Israel to respond in a "restrained" way. What would the US do if mortars landed on her cities? What would EU nations do if anti-tank fire was directed at their army bases?

The US State Dept often evidences an anti-Israel bias. When the UN Security Council last Oct. condemned Israel for the use of "excessive force", the US’s UN Ambassador criticised the resolution. But the State Dept’s recent human rights report says Israel did use excessive force.

Why the contradiction? Perhaps because of the following incident highlighted in a Jerusalem Post editorial, "…Sept 9, 1993, UN soldiers manning a combat bulldozer were attacked by a crowd of Somali militiamen and civilians. The forces of peace and enlightenment quickly responded with Cobra helicopters…Within minutes, almost 100 of the attackers, most of them civilians, were dead.

"US Army Maj Stockwell…spokesman for the UN force, explained the high civilian casualties thus: ‘Everyone…in the vicinity was a combatant, because they meant to do us harm.’ The silence from the international community was deafening.

"Weeks later, following clashes in which US troops killed hundreds more…a US Army spokesman explained: ‘…{Somali gunmen} frequently used women and children…to protect them{selves}… It is they who initiated the firefight and who bear ultimate responsibility for this tragic loss of life’…

The JP notes, "…the standard applied to Israel has no relation to that adopted by the UN and US in a similar situation…{i.e.,} that fundamental responsibility of the aggressor for casualties on both sides that was self-evident to the UN and US in Somalia is completely absent in…Palestinian attacks against Israel…"

------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar, the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)

[Mad Bomber]

Good point. But, Islam used to be more tolerant than Christianity. Hell, we waged more holy wars than they ever did!

Islam in general is fairly tolerant of other beliefs, or at least monotheistic ones. Some jackass was just pissed that the UN took his land away and gave it to the Israelis, so he used the jihad as an excuse to get more people onto his side, in the hopes that someday his land would be out of Jewish hands. So whoever started the damn thing wasn't very tolerant but the religion in general is. Or at least was.

my point is that they resent that the land of Israel (plus gaza, WB, GH) is in the hands of non-Arabs at all. They rejected the original plan in 1948, where the Israelis would only get maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of what they have now, not counting the WB or GH. They felt it was an all or nothing deal.

Now it's different: Egypt doesn't want a war, Syria doesn't want a war, Saudi Arabia is an ardent US ally so they definitely don't want to piss us off by attacking Israel, Jordan doesn't want a war, and since Lebanon is basically controlled by the Syrians they don't want a war either. Oh yeah and Turkey... they're our NATO allies so they don't want a war either.

The only wild card is Iraq. An Israeli-Iraqi conflict could happen (and personally i foresee it at some point in the semi-near future).


<<   MAD'S    >>
<< PREDICTION >>

Iraq will attack through Syria and win over it, taking Damascus on the way and using it as a major base of operations for attacks on Northern Israel. That way they don't have to attack Saudi Arabia and piss the USA off further.

They will then attack northern Israeli cities, probably using some troops conscripted from Syria along with their normal troops, and probably attacking through Lebanon.

USA (and probably other nations too) would come in on Israel's side. In the meantime the Israeli armies, in a superior defensive position at the Golan Heights, as well as in southern Lebanon, would tear the crap out of Hussein's units.

Thus, Israel, whether US help gets there in time or not, would end up winning that war.


If it turns out i'm right you all owe me $20  

[This message has been edited by Mad Bomber (edited 08-24-2001).]

[Sandwich]

Mad Bomber, I agree that the most likely nation to start a war with Israel is Iraq. However, I think that Syria and Iran are both primary threats as well.

Let's just hope nobody has to pay you.    

------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar, the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)

[Mad Bomber]

mm two things:

1) Why Iran? They're becoming more moderate by the day. Besides if they did want to fight Israel they'd have to be willing to ally with Iraq, and the two are not very friendly with one another, especially since Iraq ended up killing a large chunk of Iran's population in the Iran-Iraq war of the '80s.


2) The only reason Syria would want to have a war is because of the Golan heights. And we all know that Israel's military is far superior to that of Syria.

I know that when Israel offered about 95% of the Golan heights back to Syria they refused, but Assad had to refuse. Otherwise some extremist might have seen it as a sign of weakness and assassinated him. Assad knows a war with Israel is suicide, both militarily and politically. I seriously doubt he would do anything like that, unless Iraq and Syria became very close allies; even that is unlikely since Assad knows that Saddam would just end up conquering Syria in the process if they did ally. "I'll send troops to 'protect' you" etc etc...

so basically IMO the only real military threat is Iraq.