The Middle East part 2

[mp_phonix 0]

Thats a stupid question to ask because they wouldn't.

And if the did shoot rubber bullets on the kids who where throwing stones -> their probelm

I don't get it when you go to a riot and start throwing stones you expect not to be hurt or somt ? [rubber bullets.flashbang, all that anti-riot stuff]

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This is something I wrote a couple weeks ago in my new blog before I got bored of writing a blog (My first and only entry).

Stupidity of European, American and Israeli leaders

The past few weeks, we have seen the ugly top of the Iceberg of a large crisis, that have ruled the area of Lebanon and Israel the last decades.

The crisis isn't new, and for those a litle more clever than the average politician, it won't be stopped by neither war nor any UN-presence.

Both the problem and the solution is quite simple on paper, altough alot harder when put into effect in the real world. But that shouldn't stop any paperknickers, thinking about reality have never really been an important issue of any politician/paperknicker.

A little Background knowledge

The problem with the middle-east, and Israel in particular is, that Israel as a state is being neglected by the various Muslim countries around it. Infact, Israel is being looked on as a terrorist state, pretty much like Northen Ireland was earlier in our history.

Israel is a jewish state, with many different religious and ethnic citizents. In Lebanon, the political party, Hezbollah, denies Israel's right to exist and have stationed a number of troops in the southern part of Lebanon. These Hezbollah troops were originally placed there by Iran as an defence against Iraq, back when the US convinced Saddam Hussein and Iraq to go to war with Iran.

Hezbollah: Terrorists or freedom fighters?

That these soldiers were placed to target US-funded Iraq army, might be one of the reasons that Hezbollah is looked upon as an terrorist organisation by various governments and multiple more or less biased news-channels. Such as CNN, Skynews etc.

There must be something about it, though. We hear of people getting killed by random rocket attacks fired from within Lebanon into Israel - what kind of people do such actions, if not terrorists?

Well, I am not able to give you an answer to that question, but what if we turn it around, and states: Why would any military, political or civilian organisation target other civilians?

In the last decades, Israeli soldiers have been patroling the borders around the Israeli and Lebanese countries. Hezbollah have patrolled the area as well. It is not many years ago, we saw armed operations in this very area, and frustrations and anger must have built up between the two. On one side, Israel, who have enough in itself, an apperently just want to be left alone. Hezbollah on the other side, who rejects the existance of Israel.

This lead to fights among the soldiers and, more sadly, civilian lives were demolished. The other side took revenge by killing civilians as well.

The whole situation got out of hand, and we saw the reaction from both sides four weeks ago. Hezbollah openly fires rockets into civilian areas, and Israel invading Lebanon. The problem is, one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.

How come does the Lebanese support Hezbollah? We know it is not the Lebanese army, it is simply a political party among other things, and they even reject one of their neighbors right to exist! Well, Lebanon is, with most of the muslim countries in the middleeast/western Asia, very poor. They are so poor, that their future is very dark. They have no belief in a better life, because the economy and the infrastructure of the country is near zero. Just south of them, is a country that is as rich as any western country, and they aren't even muslims. It is a very frustrating situation for them, and after many years filled with unfortunate incidents, have led to them to blame Israel for their suffering, and therefor more and more started supporting the Hezbollah. Now Israel attack Lebanon - a very dangerous coktail. More and more people are now supporting Hezbollah, and all over the world people start sympatising with this group.

What to do then? Kick some ass?

We have seen the reaction from Israel, which was to start bombing military targets and some minor civilian structures. Of course they will invade Lebanon in the best John Wayne/George Bush style because why? Because war always seemed to solve all of our problems!

Wrong! They never solve any problems. In the best cases they merely stop the problem for a small while, but they always come back - probably bigger than ever.

The sould problem is in our marketing strategies. We have to put money into these countries, where needed. There is nothing as satisfying than being able to take care of yourself, and we need to help these countries accomplish this. We do this, by helping them to get their infrastructure up and running, and by supporting their products. Why not use the money we would have used to war, to peace?

Israel is the main concern of this crisis, and they have to be more openminded, and not reject trade etc. with its neighboring countries. So we need to setup trade, logistics, food, shelter, factories etc. On these sites. Believe me, in the long run - it will be alot cheaper than any war. And the best part is, we give these poor people a dream and hope, and they will eventually stop supporting Hezbollah and other armed groups, becuase they have hope in their lives.

[theavonlady 2]

Because war always seemed to solve all of our problems!

Wrong! They never solve any problems.

[Badgerboy 0]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

[theavonlady 2]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

[*Pete* 0]

yeah, thats the war supposed to solve the "lebensraum problem"...it worked in a way, 50 mill less people on the planet.

before that we had the war that was to solve the problem where mr. Princip shot a prince....nearly 20 mill dead?

oh, and later we had the solution of the problem about communism spreading to vietnam, 3+ mill dead, and the place is still communistic.

reminds me of Cuba...no solution there, nobody died, and the place is still communistic.

the latest solution to find missing soldiers in the middle-east left us 1 million refugees on both sides, 1000+ dead and...quess what, no soldiers returned.

[*Pete* 0]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers  solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

not a lone example, no.

lets no forget the solution that got us rid of mr. Saddam hussein, wonderfully executed.

[theavonlady 2]

reminds me of Cuba...no solution there, nobody died, and the place is still communistic.

Say what?

[martinovic 0]

For you WW2 might have solved something, but for me it meant the uncontested spreading of communism to my homeland.

[theavonlady 2]

For you WW2 might have solved something, but for me it meant the uncontested spreading of communism to my homeland.

One way of looking at that is indeed because of the fact that the world did not/could not/was not willing to fight against the spread of communism. It saved half of Korea.

Also imagine had the world decided to confront the Nazis before the Nazis confronted the world.

EDIT: Martinovic, I don't know where you live but what would your country and many others have been like today had the Nazis won?

[Badgerboy 0]

EDIT: Martinovic, I don't know where you live but what would your country and many others have been like today had the Nazis won?

Well, I'd imagine there would be a few more BMW's on the road.

[theavonlady 2]

EDIT: Martinovic, I don't know where you live but what would your country and many others have been like today had the Nazis won?

Well, I'd imagine there would be a few more BMW's on the road.

By now, BMW would have run out of Jewish forced slave laborers to work on their manufacturing lines.

[Badgerboy 0]

EDIT: Martinovic, I don't know where you live but what would your country and many others have been like today had the Nazis won?

Well, I'd imagine there would be a few more BMW's on the road.

By now, BMW would have run out of Jewish forced slave laborers to work on their manufacturing lines.

Thats why the introduction of the Fuhrer 2000 assembly robots was rushed into production.

These robots are armed for reasons unknown....

[Garcia 0]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers  solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

And if there had been no war, there would not really have been much problem to solve. You can't really say that getting cancer solves things if you manage to treat it. The war against the axis was the problem, not the solution...the axis tried to solve a problem by starting a war. They failed. The war was a problem for allies, which they solved. If there had been no war, the allies would have had one big problem less, and if there had been no war, Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co (as you said it) wouldn't have been a problem you needed to start a war to solve...

[theavonlady 2]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers  solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

And if there had been no war, there would not really have been much problem to solve. You can't really say that getting cancer solves things if you manage to treat it. The war against the axis was the problem, not the solution...the axis tried to solve a problem by starting a war. They failed. The war was a problem for allies, which they solved. If there had been no war, the allies would have had one big problem less, and if there had been no war, Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co (as you said it) wouldn't have been a problem you needed to start a war to solve...

As I hinted to above, what if the Allies had initiated a preemptive war against the Nazis beforehand? Of course we'll never know the outcome. Maybe millions fewer would have died?

There are other historical examples that quickly come to mind, such as the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War, which brought much bloodshed but led to the eventual abolishment of slavery.

"Give me liberty or give me death" is still not an empty slogan.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers  solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

And if there had been no war, there would not really have been much problem to solve. You can't really say that getting cancer solves things if you manage to treat it. The war against the axis was the problem, not the solution...the axis tried to solve a problem by starting a war. They failed. The war was a problem for allies, which they solved. If there had been no war, the allies would have had one big problem less, and if there had been no war, Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co (as you said it) wouldn't have been a problem you needed to start a war to solve...

well britian lost in the war really.  Sure they beat germany, but its economy was crippled beyond repair.  Then we started liberating our empire to try and ease the pressure.  Our economy didnt really turn around until the great migrations in the 50's.

Also none of you mension Stalin,  alot of you seem to forget he killed much more jews than Hitler ever did.   Hitler killed 7 million (i think).  Historians estimate that Stalin killed anywhere between 12-17 million.

Also the stroy of Cuba is written by the americans, they make Castro seem more of an animal than he really is. IF he was such an animal why did he take prisoners at the bay of pigs and simply re-exile them rather than executing them? especially when they were an illegally US trained force.

[theavonlady 2]

Would that be the same war where Hitler tried to solve 'some problems'.

Lucky for you his little enterprise failed.

Yes, Hitler failed because the war against the Axis powers  solved the problem of Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co.

This is not a lone example.

And if there had been no war, there would not really have been much problem to solve. You can't really say that getting cancer solves things if you manage to treat it. The war against the axis was the problem, not the solution...the axis tried to solve a problem by starting a war. They failed. The war was a problem for allies, which they solved. If there had been no war, the allies would have had one big problem less, and if there had been no war, Hitler, Hirohito, Musollini & Co (as you said it) wouldn't have been a problem you needed to start a war to solve...

well britian lost in the war really.  Sure they beat germany, but its economy was crippled beyond repair.  Then we started liberating our empire to try and ease the pressure.  Our economy didnt really turn around until the great migrations in the 50's.

Also none of you mension Stalin,  alot of you seem to forget he killed much more jews than Hitler ever did.   Hitler killed 7 million (i think).  Historians estimate that Stalin killed anywhere between 12-17 million.

So, Britain lost? Really? Jolly good looking country today, chap!

What would they have looked like under the Reich's control?

As for Stalin, first of all, some estimate he killed anywhere between 20 to 30 million. But outside of the USSR, who are you suggesting should have fought against them?

Or was your point that had the Russian people been able to wage war against their own government, millions might have been saved?

EDIT: Regarding people killed by Hitler, I suggest you count all of those on all sides killed by the war initiated by Germany and Japan. That's way more than 7 million (don't know where you got that figure).

[EiZei 0]

As I hinted to above, what if the Allies had initiated a preemptive war against the Nazis beforehand? Of course we'll never know the outcome. Maybe millions fewer would have died?

Quote[/b] ]

EDIT: Regarding people killed by Hitler, I suggest you count all of those on all sides killed by the war initiated by Germany and Japan. That's way more than 7 million (don't know where you got that figure).

Quote[/b] ]

There are other historical examples that quickly come to mind, such as the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War, which brought much bloodshed but led to the eventual abolishment of slavery.

Because slavery ending without a bloody war is an unprecedented event?

[theavonlady 2]

As I hinted to above, what if the Allies had initiated a preemptive war against the Nazis beforehand? Of course we'll never know the outcome. Maybe millions fewer would have died?

Quote[/b] ]

EDIT: Regarding people killed by Hitler, I suggest you count all of those on all sides killed by the war initiated by Germany and Japan. That's way more than 7 million (don't know where you got that figure).

Quote[/b] ]

There are other historical examples that quickly come to mind, such as the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War, which brought much bloodshed but led to the eventual abolishment of slavery.

Because slavery ending without a bloody war is an unprecedented event?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

[mp_phonix 0]

LoL

pwnd by theavonlady !

[j w 0]

LoL

pwnd by theavonlady !

LOL spam in the FORUMS!! YIPPIE!!

...

Anyways, the question can be said as this;

Beacause slavery that ends without a bloody war is a never before seen event?

Well, has slavery ended without wars?

Probably yes, but some parts of slavery have probably ended with war, maybe between two parts that want the slaves, or between the 'slave-masters' and the supporters of the slaves themself.

Not sure though, so I'll stay back there...

But, I think you mean different things.

Avon is saying that after the bloody wars of revolution and civil war in America the slavery was abolished, whilst Eizei instead questions if slavery ending beacause of a bloody war.

Or, wait, that is like the same thing.

I'm so confused

[EiZei 0]

LoL  

pwnd by theavonlady !

I initially intended to reply with "pff.. whatever" but such debating tactics are far above my comprehension.

Quote[/b] ]

Avon is saying that after the bloody wars of revolution and civil war in America the slavery was abolished, whilst Eizei instead questions if slavery ending beacause of a bloody war.

I am questioning the idea that the american civil war was required to end slavery.

[mp_phonix 0]

Is there a deadline for the disarm of the HizbAllah in Sout Lebanon ?

[j w 0]

I am questioning the idea that the american civil war was required to end slavery.

Ah, thanks.

Well, did it end beacause of the civil war, or did the war lead to reforms in the states wich lead to the ending of slavery?

@mp_phonix:

No idea actually, but you can maybe find it at http://www.un.org/

Since they're gonna send down alot more UN-soldiers with more rights to fire their weapons then usual, then I think that UN hasn't been arsed to set one, less to care about it...

[deanosbeano 0]

So, Britain lost? Really? Jolly good looking country today, chap!

What would they have looked like under the Reich's control?

those are interesting questions indeed, but having read some of your own comments in these forums. especially when media in a national newspaper be little and digrace ethnic groups i.e equate them to cocoroaches ,you seem to think there is no problem with that. and ref your qoutes of fighting back and pre-emptive wars,

when the said ethnic did infact riot ,you called it pathetic

for me personally they are not the morality of a person who should be asking the above questions.

so the question i would ask you is, how would life be like in britian for some ethnic groups Uder THE AVON LADY regime ?

Always thought the "Avon Round" moniker was a ironic reference to the gentle knock-knock of the Avon lady calling ;-)