[niertap]

so Iran is screwed, stick it to 'em Israel!!

[Donaldson Tan]

please elaborate

[dfx-]

I must admit the original poster's comment does seem rather brief and ambiguous....

[Donaldson Tan]

I have no idea what the threadstarter is talking about.

All I know there is strong Iranian interest in Iraq which conflicts the Amercian interest.

And the stupid nuclear issue.. USA claims that Iran, being oil-rich, does not need nuclear energy.

However, oil is primarily used to make petrol and dissel for automobiles.

Domestic energy generation uses coal.

[constant thinker]

I wonder what would happen if the entire middle east blew up and all/most of the countries started fighting. It seams that quite a few of them simply don't get along with any of their neighbors. The U.S. is currently stuck in the middle almost, seeing as we have quite a few troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm going to keep watching what happens over there. Personally the whole region bugs me because there is always some type of conflict over there.

[lemonoman]

I wonder what would happen if the entire middle east blew up and all/most of the countries started fighting.

Personally the whole region bugs me because there is always some type of conflict over there.

I agree.  It won't get resolved anytime soon, and something's BOUND to happen.  American getting allied with Iraq smacks too much of the alliances that formed to start World War I (knock on wood).

Something's gonna go down.  And when it does, it'll be huge.  Thank goodness I live in Canada hehe

[Donaldson Tan]

I wonder what would happen if the entire middle east blew up and all/most of the countries started fighting. It seams that quite a few of them simply don't get along with any of their neighbors. The U.S. is currently stuck in the middle almost, seeing as we have quite a few troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually stationing troops on the pretext of governing Iraq is a good military tactic. The American troops not only help to maintain security in Iraq, but also act as a major military deterrent in the Middle East. Why do you think the Iranians object having American troops at their border? (Iraq is adjacent to Iran.)

[constant thinker]

Good point geodome. With American troops in Iraq, an invasion of Iran could be extremely swift with little warning. It wouldn't be one of these "ok we're send out a couple of carriers and we'll be there to invade in a few weeks" things. That is a major deterrant

Well Iran doesn't have to worry about an invasion, nor do any of the other countries in that area. At least for now, until Iraq is able to secure itself.

This whole Israel vs. Hezbollah (sorry if the spelling isn't right) may work out to be in the favor of world security. One less rogue faction in the world and maybe a slightly more stable middle east.

[Dude]

Israel should have to pay (without US assistance) for all of the damage done to Lebanon.  The premise is absurd.  Hold an entire country accountable for the actions of a minority and then blow up the country's infrastructure.  There are rogue elements in every culture.

As an analogy, suppose a small group of the Crips (a Los Angeles based street gang) mugged and killed a Chinese diplomat (an entirely plausible event if you have ever lived in a large city in the US).  Would it be fair retaliation for China to blow up the Los Angeles airport, the port structure in LA, every major highway in LA, Beverly Hills and 30,000 US citizens in addition to 1 or 2 of the targeted Crips?  I don't believe so.  The Crips philosophy does not represent the majority of the US citizens.  It is evident that the US government can not control internal crime within its borders.  The Chinese government can't hold another government accountable for something that the US government simply can't control.

As far as Iran and the nuclear argument, it is simply US hegemony.  What right does the US have to declare who is "evil" and who can and can't have nuclear weapons or nuclear power?  Silly stuff, man.

[mike]

Israel should have to pay (without US assistance) for all of the damage done to Lebanon.  The premise is absurd.  Hold an entire country accountable for the actions of a minority and then blow up the country's infrastructure.  There are rogue elements in every culture.

As an analogy, suppose a small group of the Crips (a Los Angeles based street gang) mugged and killed a Chinese diplomat (an entirely plausible event if you have ever lived in a large city in the US).  Would it be fair retaliation for China to blow up the Los Angeles airport, the port structure in LA, every major highway in LA, Beverly Hills and 30,000 US citizens in addition to 1 or 2 of the targeted Crips?  I don't believe so.  The Crips philosophy does not represent the majority of the US citizens.  It is evident that the US government can not control internal crime within its borders.  The Chinese government can't hold another government accountable for something that the US government simply can't control.

Dude: I disagree with this analogy. Hezbollah is not a minority group in Lebanon, it is a major political party and armed force (which last time I checked little groups like the Crips were not). And more importantly Hezbollah was formed for the purpose of countering Israeli occupation. So I do not think the "premise is absurd" as you say, but rather quite understandable.

As far as Iran and the nuclear argument, it is simply US hegemony.  What right does the US have to declare who is "evil" and who can and can't have nuclear weapons or nuclear power?  Silly stuff, man.

Dude: On this statement I tend to agree. If the US were entirely self sufficient (including oil) would they even bother with the rest of the world? On the flip side though I presume that for every argument that someone supplies for evil that America does there are an equal number of good things the US has done for the world.

[Mitch]

The Arab population increases at a faster rate than the Israelis. It would probably be wise for Israel to make a sustainable peace sooner rather than later.

[constant thinker]

Thinking about it, it's kind of amazing that Israel is still there. It's this little island of Jews in great big sea of Arabs. Also, I guess some parts of Europe are still a bit anti-jewish.

[DrCMS]

How about this for a better analogy.

The IRA (affiliated to Sinn Fein a political party in Ireland) blows up a town centre in the Mainland UK or Northen Ireland killing dozens of Innocent civilians so the UK bombs the crap out of Dublin.

Or the IRA using weapons sent by Irish Americans ambush and kill 6 UK soldiers on border patrol so the UK bombs Boston.

How many people around the world would agree that that is a proportionate action by one country against another? 

Both those killings happened along with ~3000 others over 30 years but the UK did not attack another country over it and in the end the only way forward was by talking.  People in the UK did not like "giving in" to terrorists but in the end it stopped people being blown up.

Israel should learn from that and start acting like a grown up country not a petulant child.

[constant thinker]

I think this situation may be slightly different. I think it's more Hezbollah just wants to kill all the Jews, and that's there only goal. I haven't heard of them demanding any land or anything.

How can you talk to an organization that only wants to kill people because there of a different religion/ethnicity no matter what the cost. I mean what are you going to do, offer them 1,000 Israeli Jews up for slaughter to stop firing missiles into Israel?

I really don't think though that Israel would want to occupy Lebanon and keep it as a territory. I've heard erroneous claims saying that.

[dfx-]

A bit of an old topic, I know (sowwy) but the IRA/Britain analogy is the best.

I'd also say that contrary to popular belief, the incident did not start in July...it's been ongoing for years - I think it's just an easy way of blaming Hezbollah in a childish 'they started it first' type thing...