War in the middle east, why oh why?

Only if there will be an international force,UN that is.

And waht will they do?

nothing. the UN cannot do anything. too impotent

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Interesting indications. Obviously the party has started. The massive destruction of Lebanese infrastructure makes more sense in this context.

i am curious how will they sell this one. since pretty much nobody believes anymore anything coming out of US diplomatic mouths and everyone being aware of the US - Israel love affair...

democracy? nuclear threat? avian flu?

Selling to whom?
The public opinion is different from one place to another, and the news are different from one country to another, because the news liked somewhere are not liked at all somewhere else.

Usually the concern is about the harm incurred by the other side, and nobody gives a damn about what happened meanwhile with the other side.
In America, the same radio talk-show men who cry over the collapse of 4 buildings due to terrorism (the Twin Towers and the 2 additional buildings close to them) say very calmly that whole cities of Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, should be completely leveled/wiped out, just because some insurgents are hiding in them. In their mind: if the city is completely burned down, there is no place to hide. Well, I would say: Congratulations! Last time when somebody applied this idea on large scale was Gengiz Khan when he founded the Mongol Empire. Now, to be realistic, it is a huge gap between talking something at a radio station, by a person who is not official and does not represent the point of view of the U.S. Government, and putting it into practice.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 31, 2006 02:50 pm

Selling to whom?
The public opinion is different from one place to another, and the news are different from one country to another, because the news liked somewhere are not liked at all somewhere else.

Usually the concern is about the harm incurred by the other side, and nobody gives a damn about what happened meanwhile with the other side.
In America, the same radio talk-show men who cry over the collapse of 4 buildings due to terrorism (the Twin Towers and the 2 additional buildings close to them) say very calmly that whole cities of Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, should be completely leveled/wiped out, just because some insurgents are hiding in them. In their mind: if the city is completely burned down, there is no place to hide. Well, I would say: Congratulations! Last time when somebody applied this idea on large scale was Gengiz Khan when he founded the Mongol Empire. Now, to be realistic, it is a huge gap between talking something at a radio station, by a person who is not official and does not represent the point of view of the U.S. Government, and putting it into practice.

Very true, imo.

One thing to remember about these talk show ah's, right or left. is that they are in the entertainment business. So they strive to outdo each other, as do the rest of the "shock jocks" in a desparate attempt to get listeners.
Thier ignorant trash talk only reveals how desparate they are for an audience, imo.


More disappoiinting, imo, is how the mainstream media here has now put Iraq on the back burner, as they cover the "crisis" 24/7. This despite the fact that casualties in Iraq continue to outnumber those in the rest of the mid east.

Similarly ignored/downplayed is Afghanistan, where NATO, led by the Brits, basically is involved in a narcowar, trying to staunch the flow of opium/heroin which finances the Taliban & assorted other warlords.

I have an idea so good, that I should patent it as trademark: to obtain the necessary Romanian troops for the U.N. peace force of Lebanon from... Iraq!

This post has been edited by Florin on July 31, 2006 03:20 pm

On one hand, I think the radio talk show men have a point. The US cannot bring democracy to the region, and the sooner it adopts Israeli methods of breaking the will of the whole society that supports and shelters revisionist groups the sooner this will end. That will can only be broken with full and massive military force (but not even Israel goes with full power).
On the other hand, the secular, cosmopolite, liberal, PC West is unwilling to accept the civilisational and religious aspect of this war and will tie its hands into an unwinnable guerilla war over "principles" that the muslims outrightly reject. The same lofty principles will make the West allow entry to 70 million turks that will lift the muslim population in Europe to 120 million. The images of muslims holding messages like "Whoever slanders Islam should be beheaded" in Paris and London are pretty creepy, right?

Don't you ever had the feeling that you are missing something?
Those are people like us, with a TV in living room, with furniture bought with great sacrifices, with pots, cups and glasses in their kitchen, with family ancestry photos in their bedroom, with kids going to the local school...
Hearing some people talking about leveling completely (destroying completely) cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants is insane! If we are supposed to level whole cities just to destroy an insurgency created by our invasion, why was Saddam Hussein toppled, by the way? Who are we to invade or bomb other countries any time we wake up grumpy after a bad sleep?
I remember Vietnam: we saved 3,5 millions Vietnamese from Communism by killing them.
All this is as insane as that talking about wiping Israel out of the map.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 31, 2006 06:39 pm

The only way to break a stubborn and persistent enemy is to burn its city, plow the ruins into the ground and throw salt over the field. Scatter its population throughout the empire then after some decades rebuild the city with people that are under your political control. That was the Roman way of dealing with the problem. Almost the same tactics took place in WWII. But I am not talking about levelling completely whole cities, I'm just talking about using full force against an enemy.

Sorry for quoting myself, but, very interesting:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Maybe things are heating up?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 31, 2006 07:00 pm

The only way to break a stubborn and persistent enemy is to burn its city, plow the ruins into the ground and throw salt over the field. Scatter its population throughout the empire then after some decades rebuild the city with people that are under your political control. That was the Roman way of dealing with the problem. Almost the same tactics took place in WWII. But I am not talking about levelling completely whole cities, I'm just talking about using full force against an enemy.

God, have mercy on us, when in 2050 the rest of the planet will invade America to finish us for ever!
PS: Following your logic, what the Germans did to Lidice in 1942 or to Warsaw in 1944 is quite justified, so we should not condemn them too hard.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 31, 2006 07:08 pm

The fact that they lost condemns them enough.