• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

War in the Middle East?

Yes, but Iraq ignored probably just one UN resolution and we came down on their ass with everything we/the US had, Israel ignores numerous pleas but they are ignored. Israel = land of US money.

BM
 
Originally posted by Black-Monday@Jul 23 2006, 12:20 PM
Yes, but Iraq ignored probably just one UN resolution and we came down on their ass with everything we/the US had, Israel ignores numerous pleas but they are ignored. Israel = land of US money.

BM
Yep thats just the way it is......

The States needs Israel to be strong in the gulf.......no need to explain why....(right now some copmputer guy working for the US government has been alerted to my post as it has "US"....."Israel"...."gulf"....in the same sentence) lol!

Israel could bomb the living daylights out of all the Arab nations and the US would pretend it was sleeping for a while....or follow the UN's decision (since they take a while to get going) and then follow it slowly....

If this escalates even more the Bush will be hoping his term quickly reaches its end so he will not be known as the President who had to reslove this conflict....the irony of it with his huge ally Israel looking more and more like Sadaam attacking Kuwait...which used to belong to Iraq!
 
The thing that ****** me off most about this is that Australia must support Israel, becasue we are supporting America. Soon we'll move in, kill some of our own citizens who are stuck there, realise we've done something bad, but we can't stop now, because that would be a load of 'pussy ****' (in the words of Mark Latham) and then Kim Beazley will become PM... or worse: Peter Costello!!!

Israel started this war, by saying it was in retaliation for Hizbollah taking hostages, (because Israel themselves, imprisoned some Hizbollah guys) so they go and blow things up. Next They blame Hizbollah for starting the attacks through bombings on Israel, so they get bigger and better bombs to blow the **** out of Lebanon and kill (atm) 350 more innocent people than what Hizbollah and Lebanon have killed and still claim that they are the ones under attack from terrorists!! That's hypocricy for you!!
 
I believe the key reason why america are backing Israel in this conflict, is because they would like Syria and Iran to back Lebanon up, which will then give the Americans the right to go into these 2 countries and control the oil... I feel personally we should just let the fight until they kill each other.. its the only way to resolve things.. The middle east will never be stable, and we are heading for WW3, which is not good...

I have a little story about Israel which was written by one of the papers over here... saying how the Israellies Kidknapped 2 British Soldiers, several years ago, they were missing for weeks and persumed dead, they were eventually discovered dead, but hanging from a tree, not only that, the Israelie soldiers had booby-trapped the corpses of these soldiers so that who ever cut them down would of been killed as well...

So I say WHY are we backing the Israelies in this conflict... they have no right to do what they are doing in Lebanon and Gaza... It is unjustified, although what the americans and the british governments did was unjustified, so is it now shaping the modern world that wars dont have to be justified... cos if it is I dont want to live in a world that is like that... also why do the americans feel they can win this... They have yet to win a war... Afghanistan the war is still going on and so is the war Iraq contray to what the governments say...

The other thing that annoys me about the Americans, they have their first act of Terrorism on their own soil and there is a massive deal, I am not saying the Twin Towers was not shocking and devestating... but We suffered decades of acts of Terrorism where many civillians were killed in England during the IRA bombings, but the Americans were subsidising them, especially in New York, where they have collections on bars and even collected money on the St Patricks Day Parade... so they were funding the IRA to build equipment to blow up innocent British people... that is one of my Major Gripes about Americans, and especially New Yorkers...
 
you know... they said europe would never be stable either..

but i have got to agree, let the extreme arab ******** die in the thousands.. i would love to kill them all.

an 9/11 was not the first act of terrorism on our soil... oklahoma city.. homegrown, but still terrorism, and the 91 WTC Bombings.. and i agree that fueling the IRA is pretty **** of the new yorkers, but im sure it is in the nationalist irish part of new york..
 
"I believe the key reason why america are backing Israel in this conflict, is because they would like Syria and Iran to back Lebanon up, which will then give the Americans the right to go into these 2 countries and control the oil... "

also.. that part can be flawed considering the usa doesnt need syria,iran, or lebanons oil for ****...

America gets the most of it's oil from our friends up north.. Canada..
 
Yeah but George Bush doesnt think like that... He wants to control the worlds Oil supply, cos it will make more money for the Americans, the key reason for this is currently Oil is sold in Dollars, which means to buy a barrel of oil you need to convert your currency to Dollars, and give that money to the country/company that owns that oil, now that country will have dollars and to have a useful currency they need to convert the dollars back, but recently there has been a lot of talk, originally from Iraq, that they were going to start to sell the oil in Euro's not Dollars, which would lose the American government a lot of money... hence why the Americans came up the WMD's idea, and how Iraq needed to be stopped... but recently Iran has also talked about the possibility of selling oil in Euro's which has caused uproar in the whitehouse...

I think it is more a case of Oil than anything else, cos i believe something like 75% of the world's oil supply is in the middle east... and if the americans had some control over it, it would be very beneficial to their country..
 
Hell yeah

But what I am saying the american motivation is Money and Oil (which = Money)
 
I'd love to see someone take the Iranian minister challenge, where he said he would turn the lands of iran into killing grounds.

Then we just bomb the **** out of him and not have to touch the ground!

BM
 
The other thing that annoys me about the Americans, they have their first act of Terrorism on their own soil and there is a massive deal, I am not saying the Twin Towers was not shocking and devestating... but We suffered decades of acts of Terrorism where many civillians were killed in England during the IRA bombings, but the Americans were subsidising them, especially in New York, where they have collections on bars and even collected money on the St Patricks Day Parade... so they were funding the IRA to build equipment to blow up innocent British people... that is one of my Major Gripes about Americans, and especially New Yorkers... [/b]

Actually it was Irish associations which collected the funds from the huge Irish community of the US. It was not the US government which did that c***rarily to what they did with Ben Laden who received money of the US administration because he was doing the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afganistan. Similarly the Israeli government funded the Hamas in order to weaken the PLO. In both cases the bumerang came back to the thrower...
 
Originally posted by St Helens RLFC@Jul 24 2006, 05:51 PM
But lets be honest - the Iranians are lunatics, from the top downwards.
They're lunatics, but at the same time they're also not going to do anything that they think will jeapordise their security... Remember that essentially the issue at the heart of all international conflict is security.
 
Originally posted by St Helens RLFC+Jul 27 2006, 06:48 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar
@Jul 27 2006, 04:27 AM
the issue at the heart of all international conflict is security.
Or lack, thereof. [/b]
Bingo. The international system is by defenition anarchic and security has long been considered (be those of the realist school) a relative gain... so everytime you increase your own security you decrease the relative security of those around you (providing this is military security), thus making the prospect of security itself very difficult to attain. Of course countries from the developed world are generally far more eager to solve any problems they have with each other diplomatically because of the apparent lack of profitability in going to war when the cost is likely to outweigh any gains.

Seriously, Iran may carry on like lunatics (as do the North Koreans), but their actions are still calculated... if anything it's the Israeli's who are acting the least rational at the moment.
 
Originally posted by DC13@Jul 20 2006, 01:23 AM
hezzbollah bombed them first, are they to just sit there and wait for the next few rockets to fly into haifa(sp?)??
That's a load of bull. Israel struck first and you know it - they bombed Lebanon in revenge for Hizbollah's capture of 3 soldiers, which was in turn revenge for the imprisonment of two Hizbollah militants in Israel. Confusing, I know.

What's also interesting is the strike rate (how many soldiers/militants have been killed) of the two sides. Hizbollah has the far better one, having only killed 51 Israelis and well over 50% were infact soldiers of Israel. Israelis have killed 443 Lebanese, but less than 7% are actually of Hizbollah. That statistic is also similar for the percentage out of 150 Palestinians killed in recent attacks in revenge for 1, that's right just ONE Israeli soldier executed under Palestinian custody.

And we're suppossed to believe that Israel aren't the terrorists?!
 
Originally posted by Jacko+Jul 27 2006, 09:23 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DC13
@Jul 20 2006, 01:23 AM
hezzbollah bombed them first, are they to just sit there and wait for the next few rockets to fly into haifa(sp?)??
That's a load of bull. Israel struck first and you know it - they bombed Lebanon in revenge for Hizbollah's capture of 3 soldiers, which was in turn revenge for the imprisonment of two Hizbollah militants in Israel. Confusing, I know.
[/b]
yeah, and for holding about 1000 palestinian muslims without charges...

The Arab's are pretty bad with regards to their attitude towards Israel, but it's hard to deny that the Israeli's themselves are pretty shocking as well... But this is a very complex problem, because the state of Israel was effectively just dumped pretty much ontop of Palestine after the second world war, so there's a heck of a lot of resentment there.
 
Originally posted by Jacko+Jul 27 2006, 10:23 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DC13
@Jul 20 2006, 01:23 AM
hezzbollah bombed them first, are they to just sit there and wait for the next few rockets to fly into haifa(sp?)??
That's a load of bull. Israel struck first and you know it - they bombed Lebanon in revenge for Hizbollah's capture of 3 soldiers, which was in turn revenge for the imprisonment of two Hizbollah militants in Israel. Confusing, I know.

What's also interesting is the strike rate (how many soldiers/militants have been killed) of the two sides. Hizbollah has the far better one, having only killed 51 Israelis and well over 50% were infact soldiers of Israel. Israelis have killed 443 Lebanese, but less than 7% are actually of Hizbollah. That statistic is also similar for the percentage out of 150 Palestinians killed in recent attacks in revenge for 1, that's right just ONE Israeli soldier executed under Palestinian custody.

And we're suppossed to believe that Israel aren't the terrorists?! [/b]
Your a f***tard.

The Arabs struck first when they kidnapped the soliders... or did your greenie social studies teacher forget to mention that during her little anti-jew speech yesterday? Theres a difference between arresting and imprisoning Terrorist mass-murderers and kidnapping soliders on patrol in their own country.

And maybe if your heroic freedom fighters weren't cowardly using civilians (the majority who no doubt support them in their support of the extermination of the Jews i.e Genocide) as human shields the collateral damage numbers wouldn't be so high.
 
Originally posted by Ripper+Jul 28 2006, 02:49 PM-->
Originally posted by Jacko@Jul 27 2006, 10:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-DC13
@Jul 20 2006, 01:23 AM
hezzbollah bombed them first, are they to just sit there and wait for the next few rockets to fly into haifa(sp?)??

That's a load of bull. Israel struck first and you know it - they bombed Lebanon in revenge for Hizbollah's capture of 3 soldiers, which was in turn revenge for the imprisonment of two Hizbollah militants in Israel. Confusing, I know.

What's also interesting is the strike rate (how many soldiers/militants have been killed) of the two sides. Hizbollah has the far better one, having only killed 51 Israelis and well over 50% were infact soldiers of Israel. Israelis have killed 443 Lebanese, but less than 7% are actually of Hizbollah. That statistic is also similar for the percentage out of 150 Palestinians killed in recent attacks in revenge for 1, that's right just ONE Israeli soldier executed under Palestinian custody.

And we're suppossed to believe that Israel aren't the terrorists?!
Your a f***tard.

The Arabs struck first when they kidnapped the soliders... or did your greenie social studies teacher forget to mention that during her little anti-jew speech yesterday? Theres a difference between arresting and imprisoning Terrorist mass-murderers and kidnapping soliders on patrol in their own country.

And maybe if your heroic freedom fighters weren't cowardly using civilians (the majority who no doubt support them in their support of the extermination of the Jews i.e Genocide) as human shields the collateral damage numbers wouldn't be so high. [/b]
But that counts under the rules of engagement under the UN, bombing Innocent civilians and civilian structures is not.
 
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?
 

Latest posts

Top