War in The Middle East

[OMG]

Re: War in The Middle East

Don't you just love the power of media? And the blind sheep?

that is why i choose to view media as one source of info and facts, not forming opinion. i get my media from many sources. mainstream media is just a circus often.

[Nemesis]

Re: War in The Middle East

please don't turn this thread into anti-semitism. there are many j-e-w-s that are very unhappy with the violence done in their name. you should understand that governments do not always act in the interest of their people. mine does not act how i wish.

Evidently not enough to make a difference. I heard about a poll they took in israel and well over eighty percent fully support israel's genocidal behavior. So at best a mere ten to fifteen percent are "unhappy" and most are happy as larks killing every living creature in another country, including future terrorists, I mean children.

Just like they support Armenian Genocide denial. Yeah..."many" j-e-w-s support us PFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Just like your fairy tale "many."

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

Ah yes. The polls. What percentage of the American population supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

[OMG]

Re: War in The Middle East

Evidently not enough to make a difference. I heard about a poll they took in israel and well over eighty percent fully support israel's genocidal behavior. So at best a mere ten to fifteen percent are "unhappy" and most are happy as larks killing every living creature in another country, including future terrorists, I mean children.

Just like they support Armenian Genocide denial. Yeah..."many" j-e-w-s support us PFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Just like your fairy tale "many."

your stats are based on those with money, media and power.

don't blame j-e-w-s in general. blame people (including j-e-w-s, christians, and all of the other people killing) who are money greedy warmongering like the usa christians like bush and his friends. not all christians like killing people. same with j-e-w-s and every other people of all religions.

blame those who kill as they are killers. not those associated with them.

[aray]

Re: War in The Middle East

Stats below are as of 1997. Take a look where your tax dollars go:

U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact

Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630


Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240

washington-report

[OMG]

Re: War in The Middle East

the usa also had osama on the cia payroll. again, often governments don't stand for the people within the borders. certainly israel doesn't represent judiasm for example.

israel is guilty of numerous human rights violations, with no doubt. but they aren't the only ones doing wrong.

i think rabbi lerner is generally open minded.

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-17.9426591429

[OMG]

Re: War in The Middle East

what do you think about the proposed idea? those can be changed, too.


for example: "Sharing of Jerusalem and its holy sites, with each side entitled to etablish their national capital in Jerusalem, Israel to have control over the xxxish and Armenian quarters plus the Wall and adjacent territory, and Palestine to have control over the Temple Mount with its mosques."

i am sure if you disagree and write to Tikkun, they'll listen. i know they will, in fact.

[TomServo]

Re: War in The Middle East

Hassan Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, which is like the "Glendale" of Beirut, Lebanon. I've also read that he supposedly speaks Armenian.

[OMG]

Re: War in The Middle East

Hassan Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, which is like the "Glendale" of Beirut, Lebanon. I've also read that he supposedly speaks Armenian.

interesting trivia?

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is getting tiring.

"The U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are small in number compared to the fresh and numerically and strategically superior forces of Iran."

What is your point here? You have nothing to state.

You clearly did not read my post if you are actually going to argue that the insurgency pushed the USMC out of Fallujah in the siege and ensuing operation. Politics and policy. Who ordered the siege and first assault? Washington, not the Marines, and who called it off? Washington, not the Marines. Both times against the wishes of those on the ground.
You also clearly have not heard about counter-insurgency operations, counter intelligence and so on.

Please feel free to read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Fallujah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vigilant_Resolve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plymouth_Rock

First, I never stated the insurgency pushed the American troops out of Fallujah. You are once again, in an absence of any argument and substance, inserting things in my argument that I did not make in order to have something to argue with. This is the second time you did that.

In that case let us not ever hold a discussion over any historical event that we were not present at.
The Russian government lied about casualty figures during the Chechen Wars and I believe it was the mothers of the fallen Russian soldiers who put an end to the lies.
I also believe the DoD releases the names of the fallen soldiers.

You are making irrelevant analogies between history and the present. For starters, everything in history is open to interpretation based on the facts, and so is the present. The U.S. government has engaged in subterfuge in the past, and it has done so in the present. If you listen to Al Jazeera they claim the opposite of what you believe. How do we know?

I am, and have been since I first started posting in this thread on this particular matter, speaking in terms of military, not strategical, ideological or politic terms. Militarily American forces are, and always have been, superior to enemy forces in Iraq. I am not saying the Insurgency is no threat, or that is a paper tiger, far from it.

If they are so superior then why have they not been able to subdue the insurgency? The reality is that, having technological superiority, as well as fire power superiority means absolutely nothing on the battlefield. This is from Shun Tzu in the Art of War. I suggest you read it.

When Iraq fought Iran they were not employing guerilla tactics, and the same can be said about the first gulf war. Why do I mention this? Because there is a difference between fighters who train and fight "fourth generation warfare" and what we see in Iraq;

When Iran and Iraq fought, that was a conventional war, carried out by two states. What the U.S. did was destroy the state and the state army of Iraq and it is left with the non-state entities in fourth generation war. As such I am left befuddled as to why you brought up the example of Iran and Iraq as it is completely irrelevant.

The kind of enemy you are referring to when you mention "fourth generation warfare" does exist but they are a small, hardcore element with the vast majority being opportunists, grabbing a weapon and heading to the fight when he hears of one, firing a few shots at the enemy before retreating back home. Simply because insurgents are being slaughtered in Iraq does not necessarily mean they are being so because they are unflinching fighters who with their "ready to die" attitude never give up.

You not only underestimate the insurgecy, but you have totally believed the guff you hear from Washington, namely that, these are nothing more than 'opportunists'. Fourth generation war is not small, but in fact, it is very expansive and very predominant in the world setting, and you can find many instances of fourth generation warfare. Another that comes to mind is the Chechens fighting the Russians. The insurgents are for the most imbued with Islamic principles and believe in a God and a cause higher than this earth, higher than any State and higher than any earthly army or utopia. That is why they are ideologically and mentally superior to the Americans and just like in Vietnam, they have home field advantage and a will and determination that Americans do not. There different moods and reason why the different sides are fighting. What America is confronting in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than it bargained for and you do not give enough credit to the insurgency for bogging down the the most superior military.

I understand you point about conventional and non-conventional warfare but I have tried to argue my point with my posts concerning Fallujah only for you to brush them aside. If every Iraqi insurgent was the equivalent of, say, a Hezbollah militant in terms of their training and equipment things would be different, but they are far from it. They never had decent training as proper military units.A

Insurgencies are insurgencies and non-state entities, whether Iraqi insurgencies, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Tamil Tigers in India makes absolutely no difference. You are drawing arbitrary lines in order to have an argument. By somehow creating a fallacious comparison - that in order to be properly considered an insurgency they must be 'well trained' and be 'armed properly' - you are trying to exclude the Iraqi insurgents as somehow proper and thereby underestimating them. Whether they are armed with Katyusha rockets or Molotov xxxxtails makes no difference. If they are a non-state entity and horizontally organized networks engaged in battles against conventional state armies, they are insurgents by the fact itself. They do not report to any State, any government, or any central power except of course their unearthly God of Islam.

Yes they can, but not with the media making victories out to be defeats. I believe I covered this basic subject with my post on the Tet Offensive.

Do you seriously believe the naivity that somehow if the media did not report the news about what is going on, or at least slanted it supposedly in favor of the Americans, that somehow they would be any more successful against insurgence? Such an example in thought processes is not only pontificating, but it is purely conjecture. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a fallacious link, and it was nothing more than an excuse used after the fact to justify Americas loss in Vietnam. It is wholly simplistic and nothing more than an example of catharsis, of trying to blame some third party for what is initially the reality of war, of fourth generation war, that when state armies meet determined non-state armies, the result is that the state always loses. And America, sadly, will walk out of this with more bad than good. It cannot outlast the insurgency on its own territory. Thousands of Americans will die, and billions upon billiions will be spent on this stupid war that was poorly planned from the beginning, and the deficit will further increase and the region will further destabilize and those like you will continue to simplistically blame the media.