Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Castiel, Jan 29, 2012.
And Israel was created where exactly and who owned that region previously?
What concerns me is no analyst can predict just what will happen when Israel is invades Gaza. After the Arab Spring there are two many unknown quantities, in rebels/govt/al Qaeda in Syria, a new Egypt and govt and a Nuclear Iranian administration.
What Nuclear Iranian administration exactly? It has been made abundantly clear, by the Western Intelligence agencies, that the Iranians have yet to decide whether to go down the route of making nuclear weapons. And I guess they kind of know being as we know that they were tapping all the communications from Fordow and Natanz.
Hezbollah won't take no involvement they have more important roles in syria and not alienating there support base.
Al qaeda is too busy in Syria, israel has been there enemy number 1 for a long time but they haven't done much against it.
Iran already gives some support to Hamas and has been doing so for some time, it may increase but Israel is already pretty good at stopping the support getting there. So this is a non issue.
Egypt is the interesting factor here, they are in a stronger position then the other countries economically and the leading political party is an islamic party who believe Islam should be at the centre of the state.
I doubt they will do much other then rhetoric and try political means to stop the Israelis, if they do anything too overt America will be very happy to slap some sanctions on them and they know the USA/Israel is keeping a very close eye on them.
The best way forward would be if Egypt maintains it's democracy and builds to a better future with a key emphasis on education and economy.
Once they have a generation or 2 where 90% + of the population is educated then they have a good future and can be a powerful state. If that is ever achieved then that would be the time to pressure Israel for a settlement of the palestinian issue.
Woops, thread number was awkward nvm.
owned if you must use that term is relative to the timeframe.
Who 'owned' the region before that and who before that?
I grant you Isreal was created in a region previously inhabited by various factions but by that definition maybe we should hand the UK back to the Romans (Italians), Spain given back to the decsendants of the Moors and in fact the whole damn world back to primevil slime?
The fact is you have to draw a line somewhere and in 1945/1946 that line wasn't easy to draw. I do find it hard to understand why there's so much hate and dislike of people in the ME when with the exceptipon of small portion (Isreal), its 100% Muslim with one god and if they themselves can't get along then I have no time for them with regards rights to land that is currently Isreal
I think you missed the whole point of my post. You at someone when in fact the very country you gave in your example gained it's existence in exactly the same manner. And it's Israel not Isreal.
Sorry, I do actually miss the WHOLE point of your last post unless it was simply to correct me on ea and ae typo's or the initial reply which also makes no point.
I was about to point out that Israel came about by violence and terrorism, Hamas are, if you want to use Kermit 's logic anyway, simply following the example of Irgun and Lehi in trying to establish their own State.
Sorry, I thought as you made the same typo 3 times in 2 different posts you genuinely didn't know.
I shall spell out the point again, it seems Castiel thought the same as me. You posted this:
You said you don't provoke a big dog "Isreal" (sic) with a stick when you are going to come off worse. You then gave the all knowing "". This is ironic. Firstly, because as I have already highlighted you seemingly can't even spell the name of the country you are on about and also because Israel was created using the very same methodology, Hamas are using, against the British Empire thereby making your example completely defunct and you usage of "" against the other poster very very funny.
 Get over yourself with the spelling...grow up
Ok, I see your point but as much of this thread goes, its not a solution. My initial post was one potential solution as the way I see it Israel uses the Gaza Strip as a buffer zone and until the threat has stopped it won't give it up.
Hamas/Palastinians rightly so want Israel out of that area and the West Bank AND unfortunatly also Israel itself. Odds of them ever getting Israel = ZERO (without nukes)
I'd spell it out by saying Hamas want 100% of 100% (incl Israel), Israel at some point in a peaceful future would probably give them 50% but without peace as for how many decades now, they're going to get 0% of 100% ad finum unless they change their ways.
We could argue about the rights and the wrongs from both sides and I'm not against Palastinians having a homeland and in fact support the notion, but I also understand Israels situation and why they have to be so tough as of right now if they gave up the occupied territories, would that be the end of it with everyone getting along hunky dory?
The amount the US spends on defense, the price of gasoline for Americans in real terms is probably 2-3x what they pay at the pump when you factor the tax money spent on the military. The whole world gets oil at the same price so the are subsidizing everyone else too, so what difference does it make? The only benefit is oil is traded in dollars which lets them borrow more money than they could otherwise. The US military itself is the largest user of oil anyway, it uses more barrels than US agriculture.
So they need this huge military to secure oil for this huge military they need to secure oil for the huge military?
The country that has benefited more than any other (including the US) from US middle east foreign policy in the last 60 years is Israel, whether Democrats or Republicans in office. Just read the gushing stuff Hillary Clinton says about them. She even tries to claim she is Jewish herself.
That's a rather selective chart you've produced there why not show the spending as a total of GDP or would that not suit your purpose so well. The figures are out for 2012 with the US in 2nd place but not exaggerated like the chart you've pasted there.
It's not exaggerated, the USA spends more on defense than the next 13 countries combined.
When you add in all the other national security bits and bobs it's closer to $1 trillion.
Woefully ignoring my point - yes the USA spends a lot but as a total of its massive GDP it's 4.7 %. Saudi Arabia spend 8.7%, Russia 3.9%, South Korea 2.7% and the UK 2.6%. So yes it is a lot but that graph is willfully misrepresenting the situation. As China moves away from a military isolationist policy towards a more expansive power projection model you will see their costs increase accordingly. They spend more because they make more. Why don't you provide a graph to show the amount donated by Americans to relief and charity. That will also most likely show a massive amount compared to everyone else but at a guess they are most likely no more altruistic than the rest of us.
This is the chart you should have showed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png
Well Lichtenstein could spend 99% of it's GDP on defense but it's not going to win any wars is it? Dollar sums is more relevant.
If you want to be more specific to my point we could use per capita defense spending, which for the USA is very high at $2141. UAE is #1, USA #2, Israel #3.
There are 311,000,000 people and 115,000,000 households so 311/115 * 2141 = 5800. So that's very roughly a $5800 average tax burden per US household just for defense and "cheap oil".
Israel WANTS to fight "fluid militias", they don't want to fight organized state militaries with proper technology. I'm sure Mossad has made many attempts to destabilize Iran so it wouldn't have to come to this. An Iran run by competing disorganized militias for a decade or 2 is much preferable to a stable Iran who can work towards nukes.
If they did a huge assault against Iran obviously Hamas would take advantage of the opportunity to lob a bunch of missiles in to Israeli civilians. The strategic thing to do would be do blow up as much of Hamas leadership and resources as you can before doing any other plan that would require massive attention.
Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc were all enemies of Israel, they were mostly just bribed by US aid money to keep quiet. You think if they saw Israel tied up with Iran it wouldn't cross anyone's mind to try and claim some land or other shenanigans for political gain? Now those countries are destabilized they can't launch any organized attack.
The British owned the region, albeit at the sufference of the League of Nations.
Prior to that it was the Ottomans.
I think its a bit of a stretch to claim the arab spring was the work of the US or the west at all. It took them as much by surprise as it did the regimes. There was support in libya admittedly at the end game, but everywhere else has pretty much been left to get on with it.
Besides an attack on iran would not be anything other than air strikes. I highly doubt that any of the neighbouring countries, and especially hamas, would try anything other than lob a couple of rockets. An Israel concerned about an oncoming conventional war is not going to mess around with the Gazans, just send in the military and be done.
thankfully, looks like this isnt happening now as everyone scrambles to israel to take credit for 'talking the situation down'. The UN, the US, the Arab league... its starting to get crowded.
Separate names with a comma.