Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 271

Thread: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

  1. #211
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    You think Hezbollah maintains a 10,000+ strong paramilitary army, with accompanying internal security forces, missile detachments, and political attaches over a few acres of farmland call Shebaa? That is ridiculous. They exist and continue to exist because they desire to eventually claim majority power in Lebanon, and transition from a state within a state, to becoming the state itself. Aligned with a friendly government in Syria, and a friendly government in Tehran there then will be a comfortable base to secure their power base and assist in contesting other areas such as among the Shia of Saudi Arabia, the Houthi of Yemen, the Shia base of Iraq, etc. Not to mention extending their existing defacto alliance with Palestinian militias to continue to harry the Israeli frontier with an eye to destabilizing their neighbor whenever possible. The political horizon is rather large.
    I'm missing your point. I don't see where any of this threatens the U.S. I can see that Israel may not like but I don't see how that threatens the U.S.

  2. #212
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    I'm missing your point. I don't see where any of this threatens the U.S. I can see that Israel may not like but I don't see how that threatens the U.S.
    Your initial point, unless I misread, was that these groups are agitating for land. My point is that Hezbollah which claims it maintains its paramilitary army to defend Lebanon and secure its territorial rights to places like the Shebaa Farms is an excuse for what they really want. And of course it threatens the US because it threatens our interests in a vital part of the world that will be critical as we move forward in the coming century. Things do not exist in a vacuum and an absentee Superpower is not a superpower at all.

  3. #213
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    I am taking that into account and will posit that technologically based stratagem would give the solder a better change of accomplishing his/her goal with less chance of exposure to injury. That is not to say there will be no injuries or fatalities that is part and parcel with any war.
    You've missed my point: with every technilogical advance in the preservation of life on the battlefield, there is an equal technilogical advance in the ability to take life on the battlefield.

    Let me put it another way: Connery invents a revolutionary type of metal armor plate. It's intergrated into the design of a new main battle tank; no anti-armor weapon in the world can kill that tank. At some point, someone will develope an anti-armor weapon that will kill that tank. Basically, you build thicker amor and someone will build a bigger gun to shoot holes in it.

    Prime example: prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was nothing on the modern battlefield that could inflict a catastrophic kill on an American M-1 Abrams main battle tank. Now, post Operation Iraqi Freedom, that is no longer true. The M-1 Abrams can be killed.

    The odds of becoming a casualty on the modern battlefield have nothing to do with the battlefield becoming safer, but rather with the intensity of the conflict being waged + the motivation and ROE's of the forces being engaged.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #214
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    I'm missing your point. I don't see where any of this threatens the U.S. I can see that Israel may not like but I don't see how that threatens the U.S.


    It's the world domination of anti-Democratic forces. It's no different than the attemted Communist and Facist domination of the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #215
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    Hamas and Hezbollah are no threat to us. They might be a threat to Israel and so what. There is no reason we should fight Israel's wars.
    Do I detect some sort of a pattern here? I think I do! To hell with our only ally in that region and praise for terrorist organizations that cheered when the twin towers collapsed. Hmmm. What could it all mean?
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  6. #216
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Iran is a threat because it opposes our core interests in the region. At the end of the day it is the opposing force to our activity in the region, and our objectives. What are our objectives? Broadly speaking they include the steady democratization of the Middle East, the securing of allies amenable to our strategic and economic interests, the suppression of terrorist groups inimical to the United States our allies both internationally and in the region, and a general push for stability. These objectives come in the order in which it is most practicable to execute them, and in which they provide the most utility. For example I am willing to make a deal with the al-Saud because I believe that the best hope for steady liberalization and democratization for the time being comes from Saudi rule (this will depend heavily on the next Monarch however) and that it is in the US best interests to support the ruling family and secure the Saudi state, it is also a somewhat unique case of a popular Monarchy but this popularity is waning in its intensity and reach.

    So why do I oppose Iran? Because Iran seeks to extend regional hegemony with a network of states and paramilitary allies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, with a possible eye towards places like Bahrain (I supported the street protests in Bahrain for the record, and still do) and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. They are an oppressive and unpopular government which has strengthened its control over its people with a ruthless religious military complex that has seen political leaders sent to the dungeons of Evin Prison, and protesters shot in the streets. They support groups that are inimical to the objectives I list above, and groups that seek to harm and attack the US and her allies.

    Our views on the region are not compatible. I choose the view of the US at the cost of Iran's perspective, which I think is the obvious choice.

    Also I think it is not true to say we are supporting al-Qaeda in Syria, and if we want to talk about Saudi Arabia it is my area of specialization and work and would be happy to do so.
    Maybe I'm missing something but according to the guardian and the CFR without Al Qeada the "rebels" would have been wiped out long ago. We have admitted that the CIA is on the ground in Syra\Turkey and everything is going through Turkey so I don't see how we are not involved. I know officially that they are being armed by Qatar and Saudia Arabia but I"m fairly certain they wouldn't be doing that without our support.

    Saudi Arabia the best chance for democracy? Really? My understanding is they've had street protest their recently and the military was brought in to put them down so I don't see how Saudi Arabia is the best choice for democracy.

    There is also the practical matter that we seemed to have failed horribly in Afghanistan and Iraq so what makes you think it will work in Iran? We've been in Afghanistan for over a decade and from what I understand the Taliban controls most of the country and Opium is there biggest export again.

    I just believe that Supporting Al Qeada in one country while bombing other countries because of Al Qeada seems like bad policy. Also, backing some monarchies while at the same time supporting the overthrow of others seems like a bad policy. I strongly believe that trying to impose our views on so many other countries is much more of a threat than Iran.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something but according to the guardian and the CFR without Al Qeada the "rebels" would have been wiped out long ago. We have admitted that the CIA is on the ground in Syra\Turkey and everything is going through Turkey so I don't see how we are not involved. I know officially that they are being armed by Qatar and Saudia Arabia but I"m fairly certain they wouldn't be doing that without our support.

    Saudi Arabia the best chance for democracy? Really? My understanding is they've had street protest their recently and the military was brought in to put them down so I don't see how Saudi Arabia is the best choice for democracy.

    There is also the practical matter that we seemed to have failed horribly in Afghanistan and Iraq so what makes you think it will work in Iran? We've been in Afghanistan for over a decade and from what I understand the Taliban controls most of the country and Opium is there biggest export again.

    I just believe that Supporting Al Qeada in one country while bombing other countries because of Al Qeada seems like bad policy. Also, backing some monarchies while at the same time supporting the overthrow of others seems like a bad policy. I strongly believe that trying to impose our views on so many other countries is much more of a threat than Iran.
    I'm not sure what you are referring to. The FSA consists of hundreds of disparate militias and groups that are all under the loose command and control of the central command structure which has both a strategic headquarters in Adana, Turkey, and somewhere inside Syria speculatively placed in northern Syria. Support has been very creakily moving into Syria, mostly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey but it has not reached the sort of support or aid we saw in Libya before the aerial campaign, and certainly not what we saw in lets say Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has entered the picture as have other extreme Islamist groups because the lack of foreign support has created a vacuum where they can move in. The FSA and their supporters would accept any support that came their way, and the structure of the indigenous Muslim Brotherhood made them receptive to it in some parts of the country. The influx of Islamist fighters has strengthened the backbone of the resistance, but they make up an undisputed minority of combatants. It is also by no means clear that we have a major intelligence presence in Syria, in fact there was a major Telegraph exposing the shoddy US efforts in Syria and the scanty intelligence presence if one exists at all. But supporting al-Qaeda? No, we do not do that.

    As for Saudi Arabia, I didn't mean they had the best chance for democracy, I meant that the ideal route for true constitutional democracy at the moment runs through the palace doors in Riyadh. The agitators for democracy in Saudi Arabia at present come from a disingenuous Islamist network that has no real desire to see an Islamic democracy, only a chance to unseat the al-Saud, while at the other end of the spectrum you have a mishmash of minority liberals and Shia opponents. I think the situation is beginning to change as economic pressures mount, and the impact of globalized technology and culture expands its impact, but at present the greatest force for liberalization has come from the top down. It is a complex country with complex problems, and the next few years will be critical to how the US should approach our Gulf ally.

    I also would dispute that we failed horribly in either country, and I do not think we should abandon Afghanistan. Furthermore I am not advocating and never have advocated an invasion of Iran.

  8. #218
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Do I detect some sort of a pattern here? I think I do! To hell with our only ally in that region and praise for terrorist organizations that cheered when the twin towers collapsed. Hmmm. What could it all mean?
    Where did I cheer? If you read the original article you will see that Israel is the one threatening to bomb not Iran. To the best of my recollection our Vice President went to Israel to talk about settlements and restarting the peace process. What was BB response? Well on the day Biden arrived he announced a new settlement. I don't know how you can interpret that as anything by f*** you by our ally. My understanding of allies is they work together if one wants to go off the reservation then good luck to them.

  9. #219
    Student John.NoseTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Music City
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    287

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I'm not sure what you are referring to. The FSA consists of hundreds of disparate militias and groups that are all under the loose command and control of the central command structure which has both a strategic headquarters in Adana, Turkey, and somewhere inside Syria speculatively placed in northern Syria. Support has been very creakily moving into Syria, mostly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey but it has not reached the sort of support or aid we saw in Libya before the aerial campaign, and certainly not what we saw in lets say Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has entered the picture as have other extreme Islamist groups because the lack of foreign support has created a vacuum where they can move in. The FSA and their supporters would accept any support that came their way, and the structure of the indigenous Muslim Brotherhood made them receptive to it in some parts of the country. The influx of Islamist fighters has strengthened the backbone of the resistance, but they make up an undisputed minority of combatants. It is also by no means clear that we have a major intelligence presence in Syria, in fact there was a major Telegraph exposing the shoddy US efforts in Syria and the scanty intelligence presence if one exists at all. But supporting al-Qaeda? No, we do not do that.

    As for Saudi Arabia, I didn't mean they had the best chance for democracy, I meant that the ideal route for true constitutional democracy at the moment runs through the palace doors in Riyadh. The agitators for democracy in Saudi Arabia at present come from a disingenuous Islamist network that has no real desire to see an Islamic democracy, only a chance to unseat the al-Saud, while at the other end of the spectrum you have a mishmash of minority liberals and Shia opponents. I think the situation is beginning to change as economic pressures mount, and the impact of globalized technology and culture expands its impact, but at present the greatest force for liberalization has come from the top down. It is a complex country with complex problems, and the next few years will be critical to how the US should approach our Gulf ally.

    I also would dispute that we failed horribly in either country, and I do not think we should abandon Afghanistan. Furthermore I am not advocating and never have advocated an invasion of Iran.
    Below are links to some items about Al Aqeada and U.S. involvement in Syria. I don't think either of us are going to change our minds but it has been interesting reading your opinions. Most people I've had these discussions with quickly start insulting me instead of explaining their point of view. One last thing because you seem fairly knowledgeable about the topic is the Wahabi's. My understanding is that much of the support for radicalization can be traced back to them and they are centered in Saudia Arabia. Do you dispute that? What is there standing in Saudia Arabia? They don't make the press that often so they are harder to learn about. Any links to good articles would be great

    The Guardian

    Turkey Emails

    CFR

  10. #220
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

    Quote Originally Posted by John.NoseTip View Post
    Below are links to some items about Al Aqeada and U.S. involvement in Syria. I don't think either of us are going to change our minds but it has been interesting reading your opinions. Most people I've had these discussions with quickly start insulting me instead of explaining their point of view. One last thing because you seem fairly knowledgeable about the topic is the Wahabi's. My understanding is that much of the support for radicalization can be traced back to them and they are centered in Saudia Arabia. Do you dispute that? What is there standing in Saudia Arabia? They don't make the press that often so they are harder to learn about. Any links to good articles would be great

    The Guardian

    Turkey Emails

    CFR
    I didn't dispute that al-Qaeda had played a crucial role in buttressing the FSA, but my point was they are a minority of the combatants. Their primary contribution has been in funneling fighters from Iraq who are experienced with IED attacks and other guerrilla tactics. Their impact has been far out-sized to their numerical presence on the ground. The media also often conflates Islamist militias with al-Qaeda links. But its true that their presence will grow as the need for allies grows. That is why it is imperative that the US intervene to reduce their demand. They have become popular because like in Libya when they needed allies, al-Qaeda arrived, it was the same in Bosnia and Chechnya. What drives them from their sphere? The impact of outside activity. The dearth of US involvement and support of groups it wants to see rise (such as the nucleus of the FSA) has led to al-Qaeda filling the vacuum. So my point was that the US is not funding al-Qaeda, it is that al-Qaeda is rising because of a lack of support for the FSA.

    As for Saudi Arabia the issue is that people conflate the Saudi government, with segments of Saudi society. The Saudi government historically did cultivate Islamism, this has its roots in the Cold War. I'll be brief but essentially the al-Saud (name for the House of Saud) found itself beleaguered by Arab socialist movements being spread from Egypt with the assistance of the Soviet Union. The fomentation of Arab nationalist (socialist) revolutions in Iraq, Syria, and almost in Jordan led to Saudi Arabia taking a sympathizing stance with the Muslim Brotherhood and solidifying its religious credentials as a counterbalance to the Arab nationalist narrative emanating from Cairo. The conflict eventually became exceedingly personal with elements of the Saudi royal family calling themselves the Free Princes fled to Cairo, eventually to be joined by the ousted King Saud who was toppled in a palace coup by Faisal. Nasser attempted to assassinate senior Saudi royals and foment a revolution, and the al-Saud responded in kind. The war became almost overt as Egyptian troops became involved in Yemen, and Saudi Arabia provided shelter and support to the anti-government rebels. This eventually culminated with the Saudi government taking in the Muslim Brotherhood after it was quashed in Egypt and utilizing them as teachers and preachers in the Kingdom. From this beginning Saudi Arabia began to use its flush coffers to fuel the exportation of religious schools and clerical establishments abroad to create an international counterbalance to Arab republicanism. This is where the notion of Saudi religious support for 'Wahhabism' abroad comes from. It has since morphed into a mix of strategic and religious obligation, with the latter predominating in my opinion.

    As for Saudi Arabia itself, Saudi Arabia is in many ways a very confused state. The government has aggressively and violently cracked down on al-Qaeda at home and in the region, and has in recent years moved to clamp down upon the clerical establishment and the unofficial Ulema in an effort to solidify its rule and pave the way for moderate reform. The issue in Saudi Arabia is that the al-Saud does not rule alone. Simply put there is a duality to Saudi politics, with the al-Saud having made a contract in the 1700's with Muhammed ibn al-Wahhab the man who's namesake is Wahhabism. The agreement was that al-Wahhab would provide spiritual and religious support to the al-Saud and acknowledge their temporal authority, while they would grant them independence and consultation. It is an agreement that holds to the present day and across all 3 incarnations of the Saudi state, with his descendants the Al ash-Sheikh still controlling the religious establishment. The Saudi royal family justifies its rule by its religious fidelity and alliance with the clerical establishment, who in turn preach the legitimacy of the Saudi crown.

    So what do you have in Saudi Arabia? You have a government that is made up of princes and royals who are generally much more educated, cosmopolitan, and consequently more liberal than huge segments of Saudi society. The move towards reform has been a slow and plodding process that has moved on both political and social tracks. The bigger shifts have come since Abdullah took power, but he has disappointed with his slow reforms. Still they are noticeable.

    Anyways short answer? No the Saudi government does not support Islamist terrorist groups, it would be suicidal as they oppose the ruling regime. They also have been moving in the direction of exerting greater control over the clerical establishment and creating a more liberalized social atmosphere (though of course they do not call it that). Much depends on the character of the next King, the next real King i.e. one from the next generation. If Abdullah dies and Salman becomes King, it won't really matter he'll be in the grave shortly after ascending the throne.

Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •