 |
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
USA vs. CSA |
IL vs PA
(see, I can use acronyms too)
And, of course, that wasn't the only civil war in history...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
(1) The Israelis get a big heaping share of the blame. This is not a war as there is only one state here - Israel. |
not exact.
It's a war between a state, a state like entity and paramilitary terrorist organzations that hide among civilians. |
It's not a war because there is only one state. That's what war means - and either words mean something or they do not. You might be able to call it a civil war if the Palestinians were citizens of Israel. Nope, this is an occupation.
quote:
quote:
The Palestinian people have no rights and no recourse when they are abused. |
Not entirely correct.
They can appeal to the Israeli High Court of Justice and they do. Just a year ago, Palestinian civilians that were hurt in military actions in the frist intifada (87-90) have won reperations for their damages, from the Israeli government.
Other law-suits stopped several Israeli tactics, and the Palestinians often file suits against the ruining of their homes, which sets the process back for a day or two, and may at times cancel it completely (though I don't recall specific cases now). |
OK, I remember an Israeli case about torture which went favorably for Palestinian petitioners (don't remember the cite though). Still, Palestinians do not have equal protection or anything close.
quote:
quote:
Their dignity is constantly under assault. |
Correct. But that is a result of the situation they are in. Their dignity isn't assaulted as a tactic. More blame on stupidity than evil intentions by Israel. |
Does that matter to the average non-terrorist whose dignity is assaulted? Probably not. This exaserbates the problem, doesn't it?
quote:
quote:
If a settlement "needs" the land, the land is expropriated. |
Not entirely correct. Often settlements expand on their own, and the Israeli government allows the land to be expropriated post factum, after there are already houses and families in the area. This more likely to a large lobby of Settlers, and less due to evil plans. |
Who said anything about evil plans? I'm sure the settlers have pragmatic concerns about their settlement when they take over some Palestinian's olive vineyard for the growth of the settlement. I'm equally sure the Palestinians who have lost their land don't care about anything but the loss.
quote:
quote:
there is no security in the future and no opportunity for the Palestinians. |
Sure there is, if they start securing their streets against militias. IDF is there while they do nothing. Israel has stated and restated, that as soon as Palestinians start policing themselves, including against terrorists, they would withdraw. |
Actually, Israel has demanded that the Palestinians lock up people the Israelis consider terrorists. This is sure to cause some due process issues. Moreover, I doubt the palestinians have the power to lock up the terrorists - and I KNOW they don't have the institutional competence to deal with such a widespread problem.
quote:
quote:
The Israelis constantly cause "collateral damage" (i.e. the slaughter of bystanders) when they launch missles into apartment buildings. |
war. **** happens. |
Not a war.
quote:
quote:
"Extra-judicial killings"? Try assassinations! No due process, no recourse for injustice. |
Try - military actions against known combatants in hiding.
There is no due process in war. This is not policing action where you get a court warrent or something. It's war. Military. Boom. |
Uh, again - not a war. These are criminals - not combatants. I'm sorry if that means it is harder to deal with them, but that's life.
Moreover, what if they get the wrong guy? What if a missle takes out an apartment building with people other than the terrorists in it. There always seems to be an "investigation" - but when is the last time an Israeli soldier stood trial for going to far?
quote:
quote:
Gee, if you kick a dog long enough, you get a mean, vicious dog. Same with people. The Israelis reap what they sow. |
Gee, if you kick a dog long enough, you get a mean, vicious dog. Same with people. The Palestinians reap what they sow. |
Yes they do. That was 1/3 of my point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:30
|
|
The Templar: They kept prisoners during Oslo quite well. Then the PA released em all at the very first day 2nd intifada.
What do you mean by equal protection?
Also, please find an example where settlers actually stole a Palestinian person's vineyard 'for the growth of the settlement'. I doubt that it has ever happened, personally.
Also, as others have pointed out-what about civil wars?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
It's not a war because there is only one state. That's what war means - and either words mean something or they do not. You might be able to call it a civil war if the Palestinians were citizens of Israel. Nope, this is an occupation.
|
Look, don't lecture me on semantics.
If you want to pull out a study book on war and it's definitions I am very willing. I read a very very thorough book on that.
quote:
War [...] is a conflict among political groups, especially sovereign states, carried on by armed ofces of considerable magnitue for a considerable period of time" (Q. Wright, "War, in: The International Encyclopedi of the Social Sciences)
"War is a socially recognized situation in which armed histilities of considerable magnitude are conducted more or less continually between two or more nations, states or governments" (J. Gloud & W.L. Kolb, Dictionary of Social Sciences)
"Armed conflict between political units" R. Aron
"Organized violence carried on by political units" (H. Bull, in: "The Anarchical Society, p 184)
All sources as quoted in Y. Herkabi, War and Strategy, p 33, Part I - War, Chapter 1 - What is War?
(ISBN 965-05-0476-1)
|
The Palestinian Authority is a recognized government of the Palestinian Autonomy. It is by definition a Political Entity. So are btw, Hezballah, Hamas and to a lesser extent, Islamic Jihad.
According to the defenitions above, Israel is most definitly at war with the Hezballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and currently at a state of limited truce with the PA.
quote:
OK, I remember an Israeli case about torture which went favorably for Palestinian petitioners (don't remember the cite though). Still, Palestinians do not have equal protection or anything close. |
Correct. That is both because as non-civilians they enjoy less rights, and because they usually deal with military and not civil authorities.
quote:
Does that matter to the average non-terrorist whose dignity is assaulted? Probably not. This exaserbates the problem, doesn't it? |
The question is where the dignity comes in, when compared to the question of security in Israel.
If there is a suicide bomber who I know is trying to infiltrate Israel, the question of whether or not put up roadblocks is a very subjective one. For me it is clear. I will put up roadblocks and attempt to save my life.
quote:
Who said anything about evil plans? I'm sure the settlers have pragmatic concerns about their settlement when they take over some Palestinian's olive vineyard for the growth of the settlement. I'm equally sure the Palestinians who have lost their land don't care about anything but the loss. |
I was refering to actions when the government legalizes parts of the newly established settlements, both because they were heavily populated and because of the strong loby.
quote:
Actually, Israel has demanded that the Palestinians lock up people the Israelis consider terrorists. This is sure to cause some due process issues. Moreover, I doubt the palestinians have the power to lock up the terrorists - and I KNOW they don't have the institutional competence to deal with such a widespread problem. |
If there is anything such as due process in Palestine, I would be seriously surprised.
Did you know that it took less than 48 hours for Arafat to arrest, interrogate, try and execute people he accused of being Israeli collaborators?
And as for the institutional competence - the PA has shown it numerously. Let's talk about this and the previous year, when the Palestinian security mechanisms are supposedly "ruined".
Somehow, when last year, Hamas supporters started a riot against Arafat and his leadership, the Palestinian police was quite fast to start shooting live bullets, killing at least one youth and injuring others.
Somehow, when during the last few months, Islamic Jihad militants have placed a bomb near the headquarters of Dahlan (Abu Mazen's ministor of security, now displaced by Arafat), he managed to "scramble" forces, to arrest and shake up a large bunch of Jihad members.
Yes a war.
quote:
Uh, again - not a war. These are criminals - not combatants. I'm sorry if that means it is harder to deal with them, but that's life. |
I'm sorry if you are mistaken, but criminals are people who commit civilian crimes against law codexes.
People who commit crimes in the name of a national or a political cause, in an organzied fashion, are most clearly combatants.
There is nothing a police force could do or should be doing against an army of 2,000 Hamas members, or 30,000 Fatah-Tanzim members.
quote:
Moreover, what if they get the wrong guy? What if a missle takes out an apartment building with people other than the terrorists in it. There always seems to be an "investigation" - but when is the last time an Israeli soldier stood trial for going to far? |
There are such investigations constantly.
But they lock up people who went to far as in kowingly targeting innocent people. Not people who followed orders through, and unintentionally caused harm to innocent people.
Btw, they broke up whole brigades of border guards for isntance, when investigations uncovered harassing and abuse of local palestinian population.
And the accused are tried.
Even prison guards who went too rough on Palestinian prisoners have been tried and are now serving time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"However, it's also a game of risk."
A game for territory.
"What Sharon has to gain from kicking the settler loby? A slim chance of a lasting peace. Losing most of the 67 territories. Losing the right side of the political scale."
In short, it would cost his political ass.
"What does Abbas have to gain from kicking the terrorist lobby? International recognition. Funds. In 2 years time - full statehood."
Statehood is not so certain. Also, under what limitations and on what territory? But the bigger issue, would he survive it? He'd have to sell it on a "trust the israelis to keep their side of the deal" - if Sharon enters into one at all beforehand.
In short, it would cost his political (and probably physical) ass.
"To make an omlet you need to break some eggs  "
True, but breaking eggs is not a sufficient condition to make an omelette. Throwing eggs against the wall just creates a mess.
"If they make troubles in Iraq, they will have less to worry about. Thus, they make troubles in Iraq."
I doubt they have to make much trouble there. The place, especially with the Americans there, seems quite self-reliant on trouble supply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"I still think that Abbas has more to gain from unilaterally cracking down on terrorism"
Probably, but not enough.
"And Arafat is really a major pain."
He's always been. The question is, what benefit in removing him?
"I'm sure that over 50% of the troubles are stirred up by Iranian and Syrian agents in Iraq."
Based on what?
I doubt the Iranians hold much sway over Iraqi sunnites. When we say similar levels of violence from the shiites, it may have something to do with Iran. The Syrians, maybe, but why would Baathists and islamists need anyone to stir them up to kill Americans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"there is a chance for a new leader?"
Like?
"while he's alive, NO new leader will arise. Nada."
And when he's dead there is no leader for a long time.
"I bet their army is wrecking havoc in Iraq right now."
So why is the south relatively quiet for now?
"The Syrians are baathists. So they are of course helping thier "brotherin"."
Feuding brothers, there's been a split in Baath, has there not. Also the Syrian Baath party is a vehicle of the Alawis, so I wonder how well they get along with the Iraqi Sunnis.
Also why would they need encouragement? And how much aid could the Syrians provide without being caught?
That's all pretty much speculation. If there was anything substantial, we would have Israel and the Neocons firing on all propaganda cylinders with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
"there is a chance for a new leader?"
Like? |
If Arafat wouldn't be meddling around, Abu Mazen would be a good leader.
quote:
"while he's alive, NO new leader will arise. Nada."
And when he's dead there is no leader for a long time. |
Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.
And if there is, at least they will sort out what they want, instead of attacking Israelis all the freaking time.
I personally think that once Arafat is out, the Fatah will hold some kind of elections, in which either Abu Mazen or Abu Alla will win.
quote:
"I bet their army is wrecking havoc in Iraq right now."
So why is the south relatively quiet for now?
|
huh?
Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...
And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.
quote:
"The Syrians are baathists. So they are of course helping thier "brotherin"."
Feuding brothers, there's been a split in Baath, has there not. Also the Syrian Baath party is a vehicle of the Alawis, so I wonder how well they get along with the Iraqi Sunnis. |
A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.
This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies, is a projection of western values of ideology, on eastern culture.
The Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians would sooner put their differences aside, fight a war against a common enemy (the US, Israel), and when they are done, they will return to fight among themselves.
In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.
And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.
Baathism is national socialism. It has been affected by western ideas of nationalism, fascism and communism.
If there's any western model for baath, it would be Stalin's Soviet Union, which was very nationalistic, and "Russian" in core.
quote:
Also why would they need encouragement? And how much aid could the Syrians provide without being caught? |
They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.
quote:
That's all pretty much speculation. If there was anything substantial, we would have Israel and the Neocons firing on all propaganda cylinders with that.
|
Israel and the neocons already did that.
But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.
If the neocons and Israel would have continued making agressive remarks towards Iran and Syria, there would be even more criticism drawn towards the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.
Why civil war? Just coexist under different leaders, and let everyone do what they like to do: attacking Israel.
The problem is that you need someone who has the authority to make peace for the palestinians. For now that's Arafat, unfortunately.
Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...
I have no idea what you mean. Iraq's south is mostly shiite, and borders Iran.
And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.
I doubt it. But when the south of Iraq finally goes up in flames, Iran may have something to do with it.
A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.
Or against each other. Syria was closer to Iran in gulf war I, and joined gulf war II against Iraq.
This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies
This flawed western perception of arab nations.
Also, I have no doubt that provided a good reason, the most sworn enemies will forge an alliance of convenience. So I have no idea where you see the "mortal enemies" idea in my post.
In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.
Not big ones. But it makes a difference for the glue that holds the elites together.
And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.
I tend to see the ME from my knowledge of medieval europe. Far from perfect, but much better than a modern european perspective.
These societies have never been secularised. No matter how secular some medieval european politicians may appear, they usually weren't, and they could not eliminate religion from politics anway. I'd rather see it as a western misperception to attribute much importance to a concept like "ideology".
They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.
What, in Syria?
Israel and the neocons already did that. But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.
It was a lot less loud than the barrage of propaganda, mixed with a load of lies and half truths, used to go to war against Iraq. Maybe they have realised they have their hands full with Iraq. But there still was no evidence provided in the phase where they bashed Syria and Iran.
More generally, I don't understand why you think terror attacks against the occupation forces in Iraq require any state sponsoring. It acts like a magnet for every radical islamist and arab nationalist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Not necessarily. Nobody really is certain that there will be imminent civil war.
Why civil war? Just coexist under different leaders, and let everyone do what they like to do: attacking Israel.
|
Well that is what is supposedly going on already, and Arafat is preventing Abu Mazen from gathering enough power and centralize all the police services to stop this. Arafat himself is the one that promotes alot of duality and redudancy in the system.
quote:
The problem is that you need someone who has the authority to make peace for the palestinians. For now that's Arafat, unfortunately. |
But what you don't understand that the most important thing is a will to do that. And while Arafat enjoys to flaunt his authority, he usually only abuses his authority to support terrorists, or intentionally hinders the efforts of one security service, by employing al-aqsa brigades activists in another securityy service.
quote:
Why would they be active in the south? Iran and Iraq border in the noth east...
I have no idea what you mean. Iraq's south is mostly shiite, and borders Iran. |
Look:
Iran borders Iraq along the entire east border.
Iran has no use infiltrating the south, because any "revolution" in the south would be ineffective, and would too clearly be exposed as Iranian work. Furthermore, why would they bomb 125 Shiites? The Shiites already can be counted to act on orders from Iran.
Instead, working in the north, creates tension between the Americans and the sunnis lving there. This creates more supporters for a future anti-American backlash. This opens another front. The south could be later sparked based on religious propoganda, and the north would be sparked based on general anti-american propoganda.
If you would be Iran, wouldn't you prefer to expand your field of influence to the north, instead of only concentrating in the south?
quote:
And I'm pretty sure that a good portion of the terracts in Iraq, are supported or comitted by Iran or Iranian supported elements.
I doubt it. But when the south of Iraq finally goes up in flames, Iran may have something to do with it. |
Again, that is too simplistic in my view.
Iran has no interest setting up just the south of Iraq. That would only finger print an Iranian involvement.
The south is a natural supporter of Iran.
Instead, winning hearts in the north, by wrecking havoc and blaming it on the Americans, would win over more Iranian supporters than just the south.
And Iran's clear interest is to set up ALL of Iraq in flames. Both much more effective, and much easier to deny Iranian influence.
quote:
A split in ideology has never stopped arab nations from forming alliances against bigger powers.
Or against each other. Syria was closer to Iran in gulf war I, and joined gulf war II against Iraq. |
huh?
When has syria ever joined a military action against Iraq?
quote:
This flawed western perceptions, that all arab nations are mortal enemies
This flawed western perception of arab nations.
Also, I have no doubt that provided a good reason, the most sworn enemies will forge an alliance of convenience. So I have no idea where you see the "mortal enemies" idea in my post. |
Well not mortal, ok.
I'm just saying that you put too much into the rivalries between different Baath regimes, or into rivalries between Iran and Iraq.
They would much sooner (secretly) join forces against the US, than be happy to act against each other.
quote:
In any case, the allawis and sunnis have no major issues.
Not big ones. But it makes a difference for the glue that holds the elites together. |
No it doesn't - because the strongest glue that holds the elites together is the fact that they sit in power using tyranical regimes.
If someone, like the USA, tries to make some order and install a liberal democratic government, all the tyranical regimes in the area are threatened, since they could be next.
So for Syria, and Iran, making the US adventure into Iraq a failure (via means of terrorism), and a re-installment of a dictatorial Iraqi regime, is much more important, than the squables between allawis and sunnis, or one baathist stream versus another.
quote:
And in any case, the Baathist ideology, is in both cases, a non-religious one. While both may "use" Islamic cultural relics, the Islam has never been a part of their ideology.
I tend to see the ME from my knowledge of medieval europe. Far from perfect, but much better than a modern european perspective.
These societies have never been secularised. No matter how secular some medieval european politicians may appear, they usually weren't, and they could not eliminate religion from politics anway. I'd rather see it as a western misperception to attribute much importance to a concept like "ideology". |
Well I disagree with you there.
There is no question in my eyes that the political leadership in the Baathist parties is deeply secularised and only uses Islamic traits as a propoganda tool.
The Baathist movement is socialistic and nationalistic in it's ideological roots.
Furthermore, there is another thing to be remembered here.
When the time came for the crusades, most european countries all put their differences aside and sent troops to fight against the common enemy - the Arabs.
The Arab countries act in the same way. They put their differences aside in order to fight America. They would rather save their opponents and later fight it out between themselves, than let some outsider like America pick on them.
quote:
They could provide quite a lot. From funds, to places of hiding, to training operatives.
What, in Syria?
[q]
Yes - in Syria.
Syria provides a great deal of the illgal traffic in Iraq, both people and vehicle wise. Syria boasts some excellent training grounds for terrorists. Many of the baathis fighters that sprawled (and still sprawl) in Baghdad and Tikrit, were syrian citizens who came to Iraq as volunteers. While the Syrians denied it, there obviously was some level of government involvement and organziation of the mass volunteer movement.
[q]Israel and the neocons already did that. But they have also made a (wise IMO) decision to step down on the "propoganda", because intelligence is always a check you can't cover.
It was a lot less loud than the barrage of propaganda, mixed with a load of lies and half truths, used to go to war against Iraq. Maybe they have realised they have their hands full with Iraq. But there still was no evidence provided in the phase where they bashed Syria and Iran. |
Exactly. While I'm sure they had and now have enough evidence to show that Iran and Syria are meddling in Iraq, they choose not to go too far, because, after all they do have their hands full. So military action is not an option.
And making a public afare out of it would bring up discussion on the previous intelligence leading to the war itself, and generally put America in a bad light.
Go and try to explain lefties, that Iraq had a good exit plan, in case the Americans did attack.
I was infact sure that this would happen. The attack on Iraq was obvious for at least a year, giving the Iraqis plenty of time to hide their weapons where ever they want, or even completely destroy them.
quote:
More generally, I don't understand why you think terror attacks against the occupation forces in Iraq require any state sponsoring. It acts like a magnet for every radical islamist and arab nationalist. |
They don't require it.
But it is bluntly obvious that both Iran and Syria have a clear interest in making Iraq a mess for America. It is also known that Iran and Syria are two states which support terrorists and home them. The most obvious example of their efforts is Hezbullah, which is funded by both Syria and Iran, and many chief Hezbullah operatives have been in close ties with Iranian intelligence.
Also, unlike people think - there is hardly ever anything "spontaneous" action which requires a great amount of bravery.
For a militant to go out and start wrecking havoc, he needs to know that he is backed by some large organization. That his actions are not meaningless, but are part of a bigger plan that would lead to a goal.
If the Iraqi terrorists and baathist had no outside help, they'd hardly have any resources to survive. And any such help from a totalitarian country, has clearly got to be with the central government agreement or even involvement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Syria joined Bush I's coalition and sent troops to Saudi-Aabia in 1990 as part of desert shield. Of course for the real action, they were more busy in Lebanon. How much their Saudi contingent did in invading Kuwait/Iraq, I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
But what you don't understand that the most important thing is a will to do that. |
I understand that very well, that's why I said "unfortunately". The question is, can you push Arafat to accept peace? Ignoring, exiling or killing him won't help much.
quote:
The Shiites already can be counted to act on orders from Iran. |
Now that may be a touch too simplistic.
quote:
Instead, working in the north, creates tension between the Americans and the sunnis lving there. This creates more supporters for a future anti-American backlash. |
Again, there is enough tension anyway. And why would Iran support the Sunnis, who may in the future well be confronting the Shiites?
quote:
And Iran's clear interest is to set up ALL of Iraq in flames. Both much more effective, and much easier to deny Iranian influence. |
Even easier to just sit and watch it go up in flames.
quote:
I'm just saying that you put too much into the rivalries between different Baath regimes, or into rivalries between Iran and Iraq.
They would much sooner (secretly) join forces against the US, than be happy to act against each other. |
I have no doubt that many groups would bury their hadgets for a while to attack the Americans. Although maybe not all. It might be difficult to get Wahabite and Shiite fundamentalists to put aside their differences.
quote:
No it doesn't - because the strongest glue that holds the elites together is the fact that they sit in power using tyranical regimes. |
And the whole power structure is like a client system, and that is based on social factors. Arab Sunnis in Iraq, Alawis in Syria.
quote:
If someone, like the USA, tries to make some order and install a liberal democratic government, all the tyranical regimes in the area are threatened, since they could be next. |
If I were a ME dictator, I wouldn't be concerned. Even if the US really wants a democracy there, it has a maybe 3 % chance of getting one. And as long as you give the US what it wants, no ME dictator has ever been threatened by it.
quote:
When the time came for the crusades, most european countries all put their differences aside and sent troops to fight against the common enemy - the Arabs. |
That's totally ahistorical.
quote:
They would rather save their opponents and later fight it out between themselves, than let some outsider like America pick on them. |
Yes. I also think that's what the Americans don't understand. Iraqis may feel liberated, but they can in the same instant feel humiliated. They like Saddam being removed, but they don't like the outsider. Would be a different thing if it were among arabs, or at least in the Umma.
quote:
While the Syrians denied it, there obviously was some level of government involvement and organziation of the mass volunteer movement. |
What masses? How many? And why government involvement? There were stories about 3000 Islamists from Saudi Arabia entering Iraq. I wonder who counted them, and if the Saudis were sending them.
quote:
Go and try to explain lefties, that Iraq had a good exit plan, in case the Americans did attack. |
Not sure what you are trying to say there.
quote:
But it is bluntly obvious that both Iran and Syria have a clear interest in making Iraq a mess for America. |
It is also bluntly obvious to me that the US extreme right doesn't need any help in that endevour.
quote:
If the Iraqi terrorists and baathist had no outside help, they'd hardly have any resources to survive. And any such help from a totalitarian country, has clearly got to be with the central government agreement or even involvement. |
1st, why do they need outside help? Do you think Hamas and Jihad would collapse without outside help? Then why doesn't Israel just control the outside borders of Israel and Palestine better?
2nd, at least Iran has a highly complex power structure with no all-mighty central government.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-08-2003 01:28
|