Mid east

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Iraq as well as Jugoslawia were bombed back to stone-age but the deciding battles were fought by tanks (or in the case of Jugoslawia by mechanised infantry! But this could still be discussed.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh.. mechanised infantry in Yugoslavia - where on earth did you get that from? The only military action in Yugoslavia was the bombing. The decing step was the bombing of civilian infrastructures (power plants, bridges, government buildings, TV-stations) which led to that the local support for Milosevics Kosovo-campaign vanished. I guess you get new priorities when you are getting bombed.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont agree with that! The planes didnt change Jack-shit! If you believe that then you are a victim of western military propaganda! The slaughtering continued.... and as you said they hit strategic targets (that indeed) but did not shake Milosevics military power. When the ground troups moved in (1999-06-10), yes there were ground troups (mechanised I mean light tanks, and they were indeed numerous) the UN was capable of controling military traffic. There might not have been as much blasting and shooting as with the airforce but that does make you win a battle anyway! In my consideration was the KFOR that settled the situation. YOu need to build a front /border and for this you need ground-troups, otherwise you end up in an endless slaughtering!

But I guess you are talking about destruction of enemy-material and I am talking about finishing him up!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ April 12 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">palestinians dont have a army to fight back with, they dont have any chance to build up a army to fight with...israeli troops occupy there territory...what to do?

give up?<span id='postcolor'>

Ah yeah? Simply give up against an occupation if you cant win. You should have told that the French in WWII, would have made things easier for the Germans

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont agree with that! The planes didnt change Jack-shit! If you believe that then you are a victim of western military propaganda! The slaughtering continued.... and as you said they hit strategic targets (that indeed) but did not shake Milosevics military power.<span id='postcolor'>

It made all the difference. Milosevic agreed to leave Kosovo alone after the bombings and allow a UN peacekeeping force in. There were no significant losses of Serbian military hardware, but that didnt matter. War is politics. Milosevics war lost gradually popular support after NATO started to bomb Serbia.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> When the ground troups moved in (1999-06-10), yes there were ground troups (mechanised I mean light tanks, and they were indeed numerous) the UN was capable of controling military traffic. There might not have been as much blasting and shooting as with the airforce but that does make you win a battle anyway! In my consideration was the KFOR that settled the situation. YOu need to build a front /border and for this you need ground-troups, otherwise you end up in an endless slaughtering!

<span id='postcolor'>

There was no blasting and shooting at all from KFOR. The Serbian military was allowed to withdraw it's army more or less intact. KFOR did absoultely nothing, and they still don't (except for humanitarian aid and disarming the civilians). I know this from first-hand exprience as I was in Kosovo for six months as a member of the KIE/PJCIE (KFOR Intelligence Estimate/Permanent Joint Council Inteligence Estimate) team.  We made a report on the current Serb military capabilities and how KFOR's presence changed the situation.

The conclusion was basically that the only thin that KFOR had done was to create a strong black market for medicine,food and even weapons.

Anyhow, my point being, there was no ground war in Kosovo. The victory was accomplished by internal Serbian political pressure that came during the bombing.

[Guest]

But to get back on-topic.

The problem with the situation in Israel is not just the conflict over palestinian independance. It has also everything to do with the recent 50 years of terrorist acts and killings in general. It is not easy to say: Ok we have had our differences, now let's work them out. Many people have been killed and that is not so easily forgotten.

On one hand one cannot blame Israel for taking military actions. It has to protect its citizens from further terrorist acts. On the other hand Israel isn't really the good choice for doing that. It's like letting the fox guard the hen-house. Israel has its interests and agenda too, so they are hardly unpartial.

A UN intervention would be IMO just as useless. It would just give Israel the legitimiacy to beat down on the palestinians, just like the situation that was in Lebanon.

I think that the following must happen to ensure permanent peace in the region:

1] The killing must stop (I have no clue of how to achieve this)

2] One or two generations must pass so that the killing and hatered is forgotten.

3] Make deal over the territory.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2002,17:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont agree with that! The planes didnt change Jack-shit! If you believe that then you are a victim of western military propaganda! The slaughtering continued.... and as you said they hit strategic targets (that indeed) but did not shake Milosevics military power.<span id='postcolor'>

It made all the difference. Milosevic agreed to leave Kosovo alone after the bombings and allow a UN peacekeeping force in. There were no significant losses of Serbian military hardware, but that didnt matter. War is politics. Milosevics war lost gradually popular support after NATO started to bomb Serbia.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> When the ground troups moved in (1999-06-10), yes there were ground troups (mechanised I mean light tanks, and they were indeed numerous) the UN was capable of controling military traffic. There might not have been as much blasting and shooting as with the airforce but that does make you win a battle anyway! In my consideration was the KFOR that settled the situation. YOu need to build a front /border and for this you need ground-troups, otherwise you end up in an endless slaughtering!

<span id='postcolor'>

There was no blasting and shooting at all from KFOR. The Serbian military was allowed to withdraw it's army more or less intact. KFOR did absoultely nothing, and they still don't (except for humanitarian aid and disarming the civilians). I know this from first-hand exprience as I was in Kosovo for six months as a member of the KIE/PJCIE (KFOR Intelligence Estimate/Permanent Joint Council Inteligence Estimate) team.  We made a report on the current Serb military capabilities and how KFOR's presence changed the situation.

The conclusion was basically that the only thin that KFOR had done was to create a strong black market for medicine,food and even weapons.

Anyhow, my point being, there was no ground war in Kosovo. The victory was accomplished by internal Serbian political pressure that came during the bombing.<span id='postcolor'>

there were more unfriendly incindents than you probably can imagine. Little cruelties that dont fit into the clean image of the "surgical war"! One I remember was the shooting between two Serbs, one sniper and one with an AK47! they were hiding in a car and had clear intentions and finally opened fire on german post, and were both eliminated.

But this is only one incident I remember, the whole process was far more effective (maybe not as efficient) than the bombing! The official collection of all weapons was a tremendous success and probably more influencial than blasting away a so called "propaganda" radio-station.

There was resistance on BOTH sides against the peaceful seperation of the ethnics. And the KFOR often found itself being caught in the middle. How long the process was and how much of the job was (and still is) done on the ground can be seen here The balkan diary. And there is still lots to do. I would never agree to say that a war can be won with air superiority

[Gaswell 1]

Not my style to dig up an old post, but I didn't see any comments to this one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 04 2002,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can anyone confirm this news from Norway:

Three members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee now say that they regret having decided to award the prestigious prize to -- Shimon Peres…

LOL!<span id='postcolor'>

In this story, one Committee member (Hanna Kvanmo) regrets giving the Peace Prize to Peres; several other former and current members state their disappointment:

Nobelkomiteen angrer pĺ fredspris til Peres

The 1994 leader of the Comittee declines to comment on the current Middle East crisis.

Personally I don't feel like laughing out loud at this. Neither Arafat or Peres should have been given the Peace Prize.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2002,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the following must happen to ensure permanent peace in the region:

1] The killing must stop (I have no clue of how to achieve this)

2] One or two generations must pass so that the killing and hatered is forgotten.

3] Make deal over the territory.<span id='postcolor'>

I was just about ot post a similar post, seing other posts like:

"More importantly, if the Palestinians got a nation of their own but continued to bomb, then Israel would without a doubt have the full support of Europe and the US."

I thought of it basically in the reversed order from what you wrote.

1. Firstly force the recognition of a Palestinian state. The suicide bombings will most certainly not stop because of this.

2. Send in massively amounts of profesional 'aid workers' (not quite the correct term), like psycologists and other people; that can hurry up the destruction of current ideologies, grown stronger during generations, amongst particulary the younger Palestinians (the new suicide bomer recruits). Give the young Palestinians visions of chanses to a decent life.

3. The killing will then most certainly stop in the time of a few years.

But hey, I'm just an amateur about these things, but wanted to share my vision

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

why? Mr. Nobel wouldnt have liked him anyway! Someone who tries to prevent explosives from blowing of! No, I am sure he wouldnt have liked that, he spent all his life to develope dynamite and finally this.....

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there were more unfriendly incindents than you probably can imagine. Little cruelties that dont fit into the clean image of the "surgical war"! One I remember was the shooting between two Serbs, one sniper and one with an AK47! they were hiding in a car and had clear intentions and finally opened fire on german post, and were both eliminated.

But this is only one incident I remember, the whole process was far more effective (maybe not as efficient) than the bombing!

There was resistance on BOTH sides against the peaceful seperation of the ethnics. And the KFOR often found itself being caught in the middle. How long the process was and how much of the job was (and still is) done on the ground can be seen here The balkan diary. And there is still lots to do.<span id='postcolor'>

You have shootings between the police and criminals in Berlin, and you wouldn't call it a war. The small-time shooing that occur in Kosovo can hardly classify as a ground war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The official collection of all weapons was a tremendous success and probably more influencial than blasting away a so called "propaganda" radio-station.

<span id='postcolor'>

Eh? The official collection of weapons was a total disaster. They got a shitload of old crappy weapons, while both the serb militia and especially UCK kept all its heavier weapons. Now, I don't have any numbers now in the head, but I assure you that the collecting of the weapons was just eye candy for the press.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> How long the process was and how much of the job was (and still is) done on the ground can be seen here The balkan diary.<span id='postcolor'>

Did I mention that I was down there for six months last year?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would never agree to say that a war can be won with air superiority<span id='postcolor'>

I think that you can say that Yugoslavia is the prime example. There were no ground battles in Kosovo. Yugoslavia surrendered before any NATO troops set foot in Kosovo.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Again, as I said. I dont think you need to blast of houses,t anks and buildings to win a war. And even if, how much intelligent damage did the planes do, they blew up some anti-air defense and some tank-dummies. This wasnt a war of great battles anyway. Your comparison with the 'policeman shooting someone is not a war either' is out of range since a war is not defined by the amount of people being killed but by the political context!

The actual strength of Jugoslawia (one of the biggest troups in europe) was its infantry! And those didnt get damaged at all! Milosevic did not retreat because he was weakend by air-attacks, but because he was afraid of losing power!

To win You must gain infrastructural advantages such as controling roads a.s.o. To collection of weapons started of disappointingly I agree but improved throughout the months.

And this argument of 'I was there' definetly counts if you want to descipe athmospherics, attitudes and personal experiences but doesnt count if you discuss the whole picture!

But I think we have very well described our different positions. We end up nowhere if we try to fully convince each other.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The actual strength of Jugoslawia (one of the biggest troups in europe) was its infantry! And those didnt get damaged at all! Milosevic did not retreat because he was weakend by air-attacks, but because he was afraid of losing power!<span id='postcolor'>

Yepp, that's what I also said.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To win You must gain infrastructural advantages such as controling roads a.s.o. To collection of weapons started of disappointingly I agree but improved throughout the months. <span id='postcolor'>

I think that we might be meaning different things with 'winning a war'. My definition was that you have won when the other guy says "I give up", while I think that you were meaning it when you control the territory. In that case I agree with you; you can't hold territory with only air power.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this argument of 'I was there' definetly counts if you want to descipe athmospherics, attitudes and personal experiences but doesnt count if you discuss the whole picture!

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, that is true depending on what you mean with the whole picture. The team that I was a part of did an intelligence estimate of the Serb/UCK military power in perspective of pre- and post Allied Force and during Joint Guardian - so I have some knowledge in that area. In conjunction with that I also got the chance to go pretty all over Kosovo and to interact with both local authorities and the civilians.

[Guest]

Anybody have any thoughts on the latest attack in Israel, and if Powell has any chance of doing anything at all?

Edit. I double posted, so I'm trying to save face by asking an intelligent question

[KingBeast 0]

Powell has no chance of doing anything. Hes more or less a pawn, making it seem like the US is trying hard to resolve things while the Israeli offensive continues.

And I think the palestinians are more or less downplaying the Israeli offensive, Kind of like "You can move your tanks into our towns and claim you are getting good results, but dont forget we can hit you any time, anywhere whenever you want"

And thats what they did, again unfortunately

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 12 2002,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Powell has no chance of doing anything. Hes more or less a pawn, making it seem like the US is trying hard to resolve things while the Israeli offensive continues.

And I think the palestinians are more or less downplaying the Israeli offensive, Kind of like "You can move your tanks into our towns and claim you are getting good results, but dont forget we can hit you any time, anywhere whenever you want"

And thats what they did, again unfortunately <span id='postcolor'>

all too true. i don't see any end to this any time soon

Israel wipes Palestinians out = arabs get pissed and attack Israel

arabs wipe Israel out = WW3

[Bleh 0]

I think eventually (Even tho is this ages into the conversation) that the yanks and westerners will generally drop support to isreal and let them get slaughtered/slaughter and generally everyone in the middle east will kill each other.

By that time relations between Russia and eastern european countries will have improved and we all figure out its easier and cheaper to just get our oil from a country that doesn't declare jihad on us whenever we fart or cough.

At this time we'll all realise just how insignificant and generally unimportant the middle east is to us and we'll just ignore them, and damm right too.

Us pulling out of the middle east may help out our whole terrorists want to kill us all thing and so we benefit from that, and we don't even lose our oil supply since we can just concentrate on european oil.

Then all that we'll ever do in the middle east is administer spankings to whoever uses some low tech, short range nuclear weapons on middle east country x.

[KingBeast 0]

I dont think the US will ever drop support for Israel because quite simply an overwhelming amount of the American population are pro Israel, not to mention congress.

And I would say ignoring the Middle East would be the single largest mistake and country with major influence could ever make.

[LordZach 0]

if we pull out of the mideast, we lose oil security. losing oil security is bad, especially since peopple keep screaming "conserve!" and "build solar/wind!"

the people who shout conserve think it will magically make us need no oil at all

that's why we play buddy buddy with the saudis. we'd really like to bomb the hell out of them, and vice versa, but since they have all that black gold we pretend to like them, and they pretend (i hear) to like us, since that supports their economy.

the U.S. is not one to dump an ally and run when they aren't the most liked country in the world.

[KingBeast 0]

If US pulls out of the mid east, it means leaving oil for some other country that could gain immeasurably from it (strategically) So US and Middleeastern intervention will always be around.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Maybe you misinterpret the use of oil. You dont just simply need oil to run cars, but it is the essence of most modern materials. Ever tried to build a road without the use of oil (we call it asphalt),ask the romans cause that is what our roads would look like. But this is only a tiny fraction of the chemical use of oil. And no, Norway would probably not be sufficient to supply Europe and the price would rise to an incredible height.

Anyway, we got moral obligations to which I FEEL we must stick to. So bringing peace to the middle East is a must! And this needs to be solved without answering the question 'who is right and who is wrong'. Or as Michael Jackson (the smart philosopher) would put it: we are the world we are the children..lalalala

(No I am smoking ordinary cigarettes..nothing odd)

And denoir I think also that we agree on the consent. i would never dare to downplay the importance of air superiority, that would be silly...

[scout 0]

u r thinking only oil, but thats unfortunatly isnt the only problem:

Iran - is still intent to "export" Islam, the hard way or the easy way, and want, craves for the Islamic Bomb. did i say sponsoring multiple terrorist organizations?

Iraq - same as above, but for personnal power of the leader.

Syria - stratigicaly supports terrorist organizations as a tool to fight Israel and keep its hands clean, and by this promote the Iran - Iraq agenda, did i say that its signed a pact with Iraq?

Saudi-Arabia - the corrupt monarchy is bribing terrorist organizations with large sums of money so not to get hurt.

if israel would disappear, they'll just move on to europe. they would rather do that then face their population about things like food, living standart etc. thats what dicatatorships do, if they are in trouble, its easiest to find an enemy then to face the real problems.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Man, dont be so harsh, your people were looking for such a long time for their own teritory...you shouldnt even think about this scenario!

And yes, I agree! I think that the Muslim nations do try to impose their religion on other countries (oopps a german shouldnt say such racial things) but that is a fact. The Quarran leaves so much space for different interpretation that it can easily be misused (or abused). This is one of the factors where I can understand the critical Isreali opinion about peace! Is it realy a question of terirtory or does the Arab world realy not accept the Jewish religion on this planet?

This question may be asked, and it is not as odd as it sounds!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

and Bleh, I am not to sure if your Avatar from Private Ryan is correct. I know for sure that during the Stalingrad offensive, the germans did not have such thing as trained snipers. But anyway what about RYAN was correct?

[scout 0]

the whole appearence of israel was considered by the arab world as an "accident", it became much more when arab countries proved to be unable to "solve" this problem.

in fact the arabs dont give a sh*t about the palestinians, but its a good way to hammer the israelis. King Abdullah, actually have nightmares about a palestinian country with a border with Jordan, but im not talking about this.

any way, i was saying that the distruction of israel is a goal to most muslim countries who just cant accept a jewish state in their midst. in the 14th century there was a jewish kingdom in the area of northen persia, called the "kuzzar".

it taken the muslims 2 centuries to destroy it.

today, we're facing the same problem, we believe the arabs are talking in terms of centuries but in no doubt are determined to destroy israel. many think we're just paranoid, but its a constant threat.

that's why we have now a big problem cooperating with Arafat. he convinced more then 90% of the israelis that his main goal is to destroy israel eventually.

edit: the muslims have no problem with jews, as underlings, but a big problem with jewish country. as i previously said, it has origins in the middle ages.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

And now you must understand, Scout, that it is an issue that for the western world is so hard to grip. The genocide of Jews in Germany was based on a different aspect. Actually an aspect which is far more easier to solve. Pure propaganda which told the people that the Jews are to blame for the german misery. But we have no experience with the rensentiments in the Middle East. How tolerant are they? DO they differntiate between the Palestinians struggle for own territory or do they think in terms of muslimic propaganda? But before you send diplomats to solve this question (and solve it for centuries) you must first understand the basis of this war! And Israel as the most WESTERN country did not do a good job to make us understand it! And therefore you dont get the sympathy you think you deserve. A very insensitive move!"

[scout 0]

well i always said that our PR is crap.

ill just quote what Jihad and Hamas leader said:

"jews would be allowed to live in freed palestine, only if the act according to Isalmic rules.....there is no place for any jewish self governing"

the big problem is that many israelis are from european origin and only start to understrand mid-eastern mentality.

but i guess thats why most israelis that originate from arab countries mistrust very much any move the arabs are doing, and that because of their experience in arab countries.

u must understand that up until 1979 the whole arab world was bound to our distruction.

that the PLO's constitution (?) still has passages that state that the ultimate goal is the distruction of israel, that the bitter disappointment in the Oslo peace process made many israelis believe that it all was just a game.

unfortunatly we see that the world is turning a blind eye.

these allegations are, after all, sound life a Si-Fi movie, no?

i really cant explain it, but the best way is the suicide bombers. it's much more then a dispute about land, only flaming hate and religious excuses can promote such things.

even i cant really comprehend it, but it is a battle for survival and it was since the start of the century