Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[Alan]

Im not asking for the source

You must thinking WTH

Right, Sorry.

You as well

 

[Amerikanse]

I am honestly trying not to be overly simplistic, but I believe I distilled this article into this summary statement:

"American neocons, led by Jewish insiders with close connections to the Likud, are propogating a model of chaos in the Middle East..." why? Because Israelis hate Arabs? Because Neocons hate Arabs? Because Cheney has lingering issues with his mother? [\absurdity]

I'm not finding any substance here, just ramblings.

Honestly, did I miss something? Let me know.

 

[Cara]

I'm not finding any substance here, just ramblings.

Honestly, did I miss something? Let me know.

Look for keywords like Iraq and oil

 

[Xarog]

I am honestly trying not to be overly simplistic, but I believe I distilled this article into this summary statement:

"American neocons, led by Jewish insiders with close connections to the Likud, are propogating a model of chaos in the Middle East..." why? Because Israelis hate Arabs? Because Neocons hate Arabs? Because Cheney has lingering issues with his mother? [\absurdity]

I'm not finding any substance here, just ramblings.

Honestly, did I miss something? Let me know.

At a guess I'd say that a Middle East which is consumed by civil wars will be too weak and/or distracted to ever pose a serious threat to Israel.

 

[LoneGunman]

the concept of 'divide and rule' in action.

Look at SA's own past - do you think the apartheid government bothered to maintain and prop up the entire absurdly outdated 'royal' Zulu power structure, because they cared? Nope - they enjoyed the benefit from having the Zulu versus 'progressive movements' chaos. The so-called 'black on black' violence at the time, as well as the indirect financing of Inkatha death squads.

Creating a permanent situation of chaos, divides the unity of the victimized people, and makes their job harder to break free of. Hence the 'homeland' policy and further divisions put in place, with puppet chiefs. Without the 'third force' and Inkatha, and the homeland policy, we'd have seen an end to Apartheid some time in the early 80's I'd figure. It bought the apartheid regime at least a decade or two of continued power. Never mind the cost in human life - the only thing thats relevant is the continued control of power..

So Israel's been doing similar divide and rule - and potentially, the US looks to be doing the same across the middle east, letting it melt down and descend into chaos - which means its manageable and controllable - all it costs are some US marines and lots of civilians, a small price to pay for oil.

by the way, I'm not anti american - I think its a great country - I wouldnt be living here otherwise. I do believe a lot of its policies however, are frankly fascist. But currently, this is mostly a democracy more or less - and I can yell about the fascist neo-Nazi Bush regime in power in the white house, without a problem. Sorry that you folks still in SA, and being told that you live in a democracy, cant do the same - without being labelled 'racists'

History teaches us that 'those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it' and 'you turn into that you fear and hate the most' - and these two things are completely true, of both Israel, and the new South Africa, unfortunately..

 

[Xarog]

y the way, I'm not anti american - I think its a great country - I wouldnt be living here otherwise. I do believe a lot of its policies however, are frankly fascist. But currently, this is mostly a democracy more or less - and I can yell about the fascist neo-Nazi Bush regime in power in the white house, without a problem. Sorry that you folks still in SA, and being told that you live in a democracy, cant do the same - without being labelled 'racists'

History teaches us that 'those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it' and 'you turn into that you fear and hate the most' - and these two things are completely true, of both Israel, and the new South Africa, unfortunately..

You're confusing democracy with having certain civil freedoms.

Sure, I can be called racist if I denounce the ANC. Since you're living in America though, try even criticising AIPAC; you'll get labelled an anti-semite so fast it will make your head spin. In both cases however, the state will not do anything to stop you.

Technically, America is not a democracy it's a republic. This is because of the way that power is transferred via the various states. Also, when corporations and rich people buy off both parties to get what they want, it's more of a plutocracy than anything else.

 

[Cara]

But currently, this is mostly a democracy more or less - and I can yell about the fascist neo-Nazi Bush regime in power in the white house, without a problem. Sorry that you folks still in SA, and being told that you live in a democracy, cant do the same - without being labelled 'racists'

Let us know when the CIA come knocking on your door asking questions

Next time include the words Osama Bin Ladin, 9/11, al qaeda and kill George W ... that should do for a trip to Guatanamo. The democracy over there may be more 'sophisticated' but it is still a thin veil for the real power struggle going on behind the scenes. Push hard enough and the US also becomes tyrannical.

 

[Alan]

Pity it seems LG isn't for defending those freedoms. I'd like to see him scream "Saddam is a facsit" in Iraq pre 2003 or "Ahmadinejad is a nazi" in Iran and see what happens. But then again it's only those that differ are nazi's by default.

One would have thought you lot would have been "plucked" by now and sent to Guatanamo where the lodging is shockingly not 5 star.

 

[Xarog]

Pity it seems LG isn't for defending those freedoms. I'd like to see him scream "Saddam is a facsit" in Iraq pre 2003 or "Ahmadinejad is a nazi" in Iran and see what happens. But then again it's only those that differ are nazi's by default.

One would have thought you lot would have been "plucked" by now and sent to Guatanamo where the lodging is shockingly not 5 star.

One doesn't defend such freedoms by invading a country. Haven't you seen enough examples of it NOT working? In Afghanistan the Taliban are growing stronger daily, the whole place is run by a bunch of vicious warlords. In Iraq you get killed simply because of your religious beliefs and tribal ancestry.

Do you really think that invading Iran is going to improve matters? Just look at what happened last year when Israel declared war against Lebanon. Hezbollah is stronger than ever and enjoys a broad popular support simply because it stood up to Israel when it invaded. The same will happen in Iran - those who stand up to invaders will grow in popularity. By default, those who will oppose western invaders the most will be the Islamists.

You don't defend ideals such as freedom by invading other countries. That's doublethink and it doesn't work.

 

[Alan]

One doesn't defend such freedoms by invading a country. Haven't you seen enough examples of it NOT working? In Afghanistan the Taliban are growing stronger daily, the whole place is run by a bunch of vicious warlords. In Iraq you get killed simply because of your religious beliefs and tribal ancestry.

Do you really think that invading Iran is going to improve matters? Just look at what happened last year when Israel declared war against Lebanon. Hezbollah is stronger than ever and enjoys a broad popular support simply because it stood up to Israel when it invaded. The same will happen in Iran - those who stand up to invaders will grow in popularity. By default, those who will oppose western invaders the most will be the Islamists.

You don't defend ideals such as freedom by invading other countries. That's doublethink and it doesn't work.

Where hasn't it worked? It's too early to judge Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course having the U.S do all the dirty work while demonizing them doesn't help.

Um yes. It doesn't get much worse than a nuke armed Iran.

Hezbollah had spent months planning and building defenses. It only lasted a month so it was more a skirmish then a war. Although Hezbollah certainly got plenty of support from your ilk which made things much tougher for the Israelies.

So. Nobody said it would be easy.

It's certainly a better option than appeasement, groveling and deluding oneself the threat isn't there.

 

[Amerikanse]

Look for keywords like Iraq and oil

Why does the world think the Iraq war was about oil? I can't cite a source here, but the the US is spending upwards of a billon a day to fight this war. That is outweighing any pathetic output that Iraq is sending.

I can see (in a twisted sort of way) why Israel might want to keep things shaken up in the ME--but what about US interests? Remember, ther US is Israel's friend, not the other way 'round. If Israel is endangering US interests in the ME, Uncle Sam will be quick to the the Jews know it--Just like they warned the Israelis not to start the Six Day War--and they didn't. I believe the US really does want peace in the ME, but to secure their supply of oil, it can't be war-torn as this author suggests. Money and oil don't flow when war is going on--Iraq is a great example.

 

[d0b33]

Where hasn't it worked? It's too early to judge Iraq

ROFLMAO!

 

[Xarog]

Where hasn't it worked? It's too early to judge Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course having the U.S do all the dirty work while demonizing them doesn't help.

Um yes. It doesn't get much worse than a nuke armed Iran.

Hezbollah had spent months planning and building defenses. It only lasted a month so it was more a skirmish then a war. Although Hezbollah certainly got plenty of support from your ilk which made things much tougher for the Israelies.

So. Nobody said it would be easy.

It's certainly a better option than appeasement, groveling and deluding oneself the threat isn't there.

Only one nation has ever used a nuke aggressively. Only one nation has recently seriously looked at using nukes in conventional warfare. In both cases, the country is America.

There is no evidence that Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. They are entitled to build nuclear power for civilian purposes under the non-proliferation treaty. Infact other countries are obliged to help them do so with technical assistance.

To invade Iran on the basis that it might be developing nuclear weapons is a bad idea. It's also wrong. When I say "Don't invade Iran" I am actively defending my principles. I am not following a policy of appeasement, but of doing what is right.

If any country wants to attack Iran on the basis that they might be developing or even ARE developing nuclear weapons, then they are a rogue nation and the rest of the world is entitled to respond with violence against the agressor.

Hezbollah was in the right when it defended itself from Israel. It was also in the right when it kidnapped Israeli soldiers in order to use them to get Israel to agree to a prisoner exchange, especially when the prisoners they are trying to free are Lebanese civilians who, for the most part, were kidnapped at random when Israel withdrew from the area in 2000. The overwhelming majority of these civilians have never been charged with a crime and even Israeli officials have admitted that the chances of them being guilty of anything is negligable. My support didn't make Hezbollah's job any easier, but I can only wish it did. Israel was in the wrong, and the support that all segments of Lebanese society gave Hezbollah for defending Lebanon against Israel proves it.

There is no demonizing of the US going on. They're getting their just deserts for invading foreign countries for their own selfish purposes. America does not invade countries because of some misguided sense of morality. Case in point, America has barely batted an eyelid at what's happened and happening in Zimbabwe. Why? Because there's nothing tangible to be gained from such an invasion.

And there's a long list of examples where America has completely ignored the principles of democracy by organising coups against democratically elected leaders and installed brutal dictators. Pinochet is an excellent example of this. They even helped train his death squads, FFS. The most recent example of this was the failed attempt to remove Chavez from power. Although it must be said that it isn't clear whether America tried to organise it, or if it merely offered assistance to the other factions in Venezuela that were opposed to Chavez's rule.

Nobody ever said it was easy. People just said that it's arse-backwards and wrong, and that the only people deluding themselves were those who believed economic imperialism really had some moral facet to it.

 

[LoneGunman]

and more factoids, to clarify the reality behind the supposed 'poor little State' that the US is helping out. And why the Muslim world is justifiably somewhat irked at the US (forget the 'they envy us our freedoms' nonsense)
Its all about the US propping up Israel..

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html
Snapshot of the state of Israel

Israel’s population is 6 million people, including:

› 182,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank
› 20,000 illegal settlers in the occupied Golan Heights
› 7,000 illegal settlers in the Gaza Strip
› 176,000 illegal settlers in East Jerusalem1

Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world, and Israelis enjoy a per capita income higher than Ireland, Spain, or oil-rich Saudi Arabia.2
*
Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.3

Since 28 September 2000, Israeli police, soldiers and settlers have killed more than 2,050 Palestinians -- the vast majority of them civilians -- in contravention of international law.

A BREAKDOWN OF UNITED STATES AID TO ISRAEL

Financial Aid

The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world, receiving over one-third of total US aid to foreign countries4, even though Israel’s population comprises just .001% of the world’s population and has one the world’s higher per capita incomes.

Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. The interest costs born by US taxpayers on behalf of Israel are $49,937,000,000 – making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $134,791,507,200 (more than $134 billion).5

The total cost of this financial aid to US tax payers per Israeli is $23,240.

Since 1992, the US has offered Israel an additional $2 billion in loan guarantees every year.6

Nearly all past loans to Israel have been forgiven – leading Israel to claim that they have never defaulted on repayment of a US loan – with most loans made on the understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them.

In 1997 alone, the total of US grants and loan guarantees to Israel was $5.5 billion, i.e., $15,068,493 per day.

Military Aid

The United States provides direct and indirect military aid to Israel – totalling more than it gives to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean put together, whose combined total population is 1,054,000,000.

According to a US Department of Defence Joint Report to Congress in March 2001, “It is in the United States’ national interest to promote the existence of a stable, democratic and militarily strong Israel, at peace with its neighbours […]”.7 According to a US State Department statement in November 2002, the US government is committed to “maintaining and enhancing Israel’s security and qualitative edge over any combination of adversaries” and “the important advantages the US-Israeli strategic relationship has and will continue to provide us.”8

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is grants to foreign governments financing the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training. Israel receives 50% of the FMF budget request. The large sums paid by the US to Egypt and Jordan are in recognition of the two countries signing peace accords with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively.

FMF Budget Request FY 2001: Total budget request: $3.54 billion Budget request for Israel: $1.98 billion
Budget request for Egypt: $1.3 billion
Budget request for Jordan $75 million

The Economic Support Fund (ESF) promotes economic and political stability in areas strategically important to the US. It is not intended for military usage, but allows the recipient government to free up other money, therefore providing indirect military aid. Israel receives the largest single grant of the Near East budget, which alone is 79% of the total ESF request.

ESF Budget Request, FY 2001:

Total budget request: $2.313 billion

Budget request for Near East: $1.828 billion, including:

Israel $840 million
Egypt $150 million
WB/GS $100 million

Furthermore:

18 of the 92 pending arms sales transfers in the year 2000 were to Israel;

Israel has the world’s largest fleet of F-16s outside the US, currently possessing 200 jets -- with a further 102 on order with American manufacturer Lockheed Martin;
*
In June 2001 Israel again requested $800 million in supplementary US aid. This was originally pledged to cover the cost of the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon – in other words, Israel was being paid for complying with international law. As Israel re-requests this package, administration officials have considered linking it to the implementation of the Mitchell Report, again effectively paying Israel to comply with international standards;9

Charitable Aid

Private donations to American charities initially constituted one quarter of Israel’s budget. Today, it is estimated that these tax-deductible donations exceed $1.5 billion per year. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax deductible contributions to a foreign government does not exist for any other country.

US aid to Israel: A violation of US law

US law prohibits the President from providing military aid to any country that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights”.10 Under the 1967 US Arms Export Control Act, it is illegal to use US weapons to carry out extra-judicial killings. This act stipulates that weapons be sold to “friendly countries solely for internal security and legitimate defence.”

Since September 2000, the Israeli army has used attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 missiles to target Palestinian civilians, homes, forces, buildings and in demonstrations. In its Human Rights Report, the US State Department declared that Israeli army actions were an “excessive use of force”, noting that the Israeli forces used live ammunition, even when they were not in imminent danger, and that the Israeli military “shelled PA institutions and Palestinian civilian areas in response to individual Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians or settlers”.

The Israeli government’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories have been condemned by human rights organisations worldwide. The Israeli army’s “excessive use of force” towards Palestinian civilians and its policy of “state assassinations” violate international human rights law. In supplying military aid to such a state, the US is violating its own laws.


1 CIA World Factbook, July 2001
2 Zunes, Stephen, “The Strategic Function of US Aid to Israel” (Washington Report on the Middle East December 2002)
3 ibid.
4 Washington Report on the Middle East December 2002
5 Ibid, as of 1 November 1997.
6 Ibid.
7 Foreign Military Training and DOD engagements, Activities of Interest, vol. 1, (fiscal year 1999-2000), Joint Report to Congress, March 1, 2001. Full text available through Federation of American Scientists’ website
8 “US promises Israel $2.16 billion military aid 2004,” Reuters, 21 November 2002
9 The Jerusalem Post, 28/6/01
10 22 USC 2304(a)

 

[d0b33]

Nice one, LG

 

[Amerikanse]

Back to the US-Israel-Lebanon connection for a moment.

From the article:

"The provoking of civil war certainly seemed to be the goal of Israel's assault on Lebanon over the summer. The attack failed, as even Israelis admit, because Lebanese society rallied behind Hezbollah's impressive show of resistance rather than, as was hoped, turning on the Shia militia."

No sources are cited here, so I have to rely on common knowledge in the subject. From a common-sense analysis of the news, I can find no justification for this statement.

Let's look at the history of Lebanon and Israel. 1982. Why did the Israelis invade? The PLO, headed up by my old friend Bloody Yassir Arifat, was headquartered in Beirut and was launching attacks across the border on the Israelis. The Israelis did what any sensible country would do when being attacked--wipe out their attackers. To do so, they invaded Lebanon, shelled the mess outta Beirut and forced Arafat and his minions (name-calling intentional) to flee to Tunisia, where they were much lees likely to do damage to Israel.

2006. A radical Muslim Group called Hezbollah gains power, arms soldiers, and starts launching rockets at Israeli civilians from Southern Lebanon. The Israelis retaliate and bomb the mess outta thge Hezbos, wherever they can find them.

So where is the intended civil war? If you look at the news now, if any such plan was in place it backfired. Though certainly weakened politically, Hezbollah, through a very clever PR campaign, is getting the Lebanese people on their side through the supposed reconstruction of the country's infrastructure. Three weeks ago, they staged massive rally with 100,000's of poeple in the capital to demand that the US/Israel backed PM/President step down.

How was this situation created? In my humble opinion, Israel could have avoided the situation completely by crushing Hezbollah when it had the chance. But, if you will recall, Olmert backed down at the last minute when his generals were rearing to go. (It is worth noting here that Olmert is the only Israeli PM who has never served in the military.) This allowed Hezbollah to survive another day.

Some may point to this fact as proof of the theory in the article, but have a look at these.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=169680

The following wikipedia articel quotes John Bolton against being a ceasefire and quotes G. W. Several times as saying Hezbollah is "The root of the problem." That seems like a fairly clear indication that the US wants the Hezbos wiped out.

Anyways, I'll wait for a reply, and keep researching...

 

[Alan]

Only one nation has ever used a nuke aggressively. Only one nation has recently seriously looked at using nukes in conventional warfare. In both cases, the country is America.

So what do you propose they should have done with Japan in WW2. Yeah the U.S has looked into using tactical nukes. The likelihood of them actually doing it is very slim. After all they have had plenty of opportunities to use them.

There is no evidence that Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. They are entitled to build nuclear power for civilian purposes under the non-proliferation treaty. Infact other countries are obliged to help them do so with technical assistance.

So why are they going through all that trouble to not co-operate. You would trust the Iranians not to build nukes then.

To invade Iran on the basis that it might be developing nuclear weapons is a bad idea. It's also wrong. When I say "Don't invade Iran" I am actively defending my principles. I am not following a policy of appeasement, but of doing what is right

.

Maybe not full invasion but destroy their capabilities. What principles are those? It's becoming more and more evident that you don't seem to have a problem with the Iranian leadership. Is that true?

If any country wants to attack Iran on the basis that they might be developing or even ARE developing nuclear weapons, then they are a rogue nation and the rest of the world is entitled to respond with violence against the agressor.

A rogue nation to you("you" not being "the rest of the world). Others believe having tyrannical fundamentalist armed with nukes is unacceptable and a chance not worth taking.

Hezbollah was in the right when it defended itself from Israel. It was also in the right when it kidnapped Israeli soldiers in order to use them to get Israel to agree to a prisoner exchange, especially when the prisoners they are trying to free are Lebanese civilians who, for the most part, were kidnapped at random when Israel withdrew from the area in 2000. The overwhelming majority of these civilians have never been charged with a crime and even Israeli officials have admitted that the chances of them being guilty of anything is negligable. My support didn't make Hezbollah's job any easier, but I can only wish it did. Israel was in the wrong, and the support that all segments of Lebanese society gave Hezbollah for defending Lebanon against Israel proves it.

Pity the Lebanese civilians they used as shields. While Lebanon is now in turmoil with Hizbollah trying to sieze power. I wonder how the infidels will enjoy living under them and destruction coming Lebanon's way when Hizbbollah attack Israel again. The media and lefties in the west can only protect Hizbollah so much.

There is no demonizing of the US going on. They're getting their just deserts for invading foreign countries for their own selfish purposes. America does not invade countries because of some misguided sense of morality. Case in point, America has barely batted an eyelid at what's happened and happening in Zimbabwe. Why? Because there's nothing tangible to be gained from such an invasion.

They invade for their own and our(yes! you and me) security and freedom. Zim isn't as big a threat to freedom as say Iran.

And there's a long list of examples where America has completely ignored the principles of democracy by organising coups against democratically elected leaders and installed brutal dictators. Pinochet is an excellent example of this. They even helped train his death squads, FFS. The most recent example of this was the failed attempt to remove Chavez from power. Although it must be said that it isn't clear whether America tried to organise it, or if it merely offered assistance to the other factions in Venezuela that were opposed to Chavez's rule.

Did you forget about the Cold War. The battle between ideologies was bloodiest and dirtiest in the third world.

Nobody ever said it was easy. People just said that it's arse-backwards and wrong, and that the only people deluding themselves were those who believed economic imperialism really had some moral facet to it.

The U.S is defending itself whether you like it or not. You might prefer to see them wiped out but they sure as hell aren't going to lie back and let it happen.

 

[Syndyre]

Only one nation has ever used a nuke aggressively.

Considering the choice was between nuking Japan and losing hundreds of thousands of their own troops in an invasion, there wasn't much of a choice to be made. IMO the blood is on the Japanese leadership's hands for not surrendering after the Hiroshima bomb.

There is no evidence that Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. They are entitled to build nuclear power for civilian purposes under the non-proliferation treaty. Infact other countries are obliged to help them do so with technical assistance.

The US isn't the only one that has a problem with the current Iranian situation, and they don't exactly have an honest track record that lends them credibility anyway. Especially when their leader sees visions and says sovereign countries should be "wiped off the map", denies the Holocaust etc.

If any country wants to attack Iran on the basis that they might be developing or even ARE developing nuclear weapons, then they are a rogue nation and the rest of the world is entitled to respond with violence against the agressor.

According to whose definition and authority, yours?

Hezbollah was in the right when it defended itself from Israel. It was also in the right when it kidnapped Israeli soldiers in order to use them to get Israel to agree to a prisoner exchange, especially when the prisoners they are trying to free are Lebanese civilians who, for the most part, were kidnapped at random when Israel withdrew from the area in 2000. The overwhelming majority of these civilians have never been charged with a crime and even Israeli officials have admitted that the chances of them being guilty of anything is negligable. My support didn't make Hezbollah's job any easier, but I can only wish it did. Israel was in the wrong, and the support that all segments of Lebanese society gave Hezbollah for defending Lebanon against Israel proves it.

So Hezbollah was justified in invading sovereign Israeli territory and kidnapping its citizens? Can you really fault Israel for responding in that situation? Was Hezbollah also justified when they attacked Israeli civilians with rockets? What about when they deliberately launched these rockets from Lebanese civilian areas to try and prevent Israel from retaliating?

And there's a long list of examples where America has completely ignored the principles of democracy by organising coups against democratically elected leaders and installed brutal dictators. Pinochet is an excellent example of this. They even helped train his death squads, FFS. The most recent example of this was the failed attempt to remove Chavez from power. Although it must be said that it isn't clear whether America tried to organise it, or if it merely offered assistance to the other factions in Venezuela that were opposed to Chavez's rule.

Chavez doesn't exactly represent liberal democracy anyway.

 

[w1z4rd]

Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world, and Israelis enjoy a per capita income higher than Ireland, Spain, or oil-rich Saudi Arabia.2
*

No it doesn't, in fact its not in the top 20

Richest Countries in the World
Rank Country GDP - per capita
1 Luxembourg $ 55,100
2 Norway $ 37,800
3 United States $ 37,800
4 San Marino $ 34,600
5 Switzerland $ 32,700
6 Denmark $ 31,100
7 Iceland $ 30,900
8 Austria $ 30,000
9 Canada $ 29,800
10 Ireland $ 29,600
11 Belgium $ 29,100
12 Australia $ 29,000
13 Netherlands $ 28,600
14 Japan $ 28,200
15 United Kingdom $ 27,700
16 France $ 27,600
17 Germany $ 27,600
18 Finland $ 27,400
19 Monaco $ 27,000
20 Sweden $ 26,800


If you look at the top 10 richest people in the world and where they come from you will notice a Saudi... no Israelis

Richest People in the World
Rank Country Individual
1 United States Gates, William H III
2 United States Buffett, Warren E
3 India Lakshmi Mittal
4 Mexico Carlos Slim Helu
5 Saudi Arabia Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud
6 Sweden Ingvar Kamprad
7 United States Paul Allen
8 Germany Karl Albrecht
9 United States Lawrence Ellison
10 United States S Robson Walton

For the record, the richest countries in the middle east are as follows:

Richest Countries in the Middle East
Rank Country GDP - per capita
1 United Arab Emirates $ 23,200
2 Qatar $ 21,500
3 Israel $ 19,800
4 Cyprus $ 19,200
5 Kuwait $ 19,000

You will also notice Countries with the most Billionaires does not have an Israeli:

Countries with the Most Billionaires
Rank Country Number of billionaires
1 United States 269
2 Japan 29
3 Germany 28
4 Italy 17
5 Canada 16
6 Switzerland 15
7 France 15
8 Hong Kong 14
9 Mexico 13
10 United Kingdom 12
11 Russia 8
11 Saudi Arabia 8

Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.3

So is Saudi, Qatar and the UAE.

Your source is biased and incorrect, your comparisons are done between a democracy against psuedo-states and dictatorships. I think you should have a little slow down and realize how incorrect a lot of this is.

 

[Xarog]

Back to the US-Israel-Lebanon connection for a moment.

From the article:

"The provoking of civil war certainly seemed to be the goal of Israel's assault on Lebanon over the summer. The attack failed, as even Israelis admit, because Lebanese society rallied behind Hezbollah's impressive show of resistance rather than, as was hoped, turning on the Shia militia."

No sources are cited here, so I have to rely on common knowledge in the subject. From a common-sense analysis of the news, I can find no justification for this statement.

Let's look at the history of Lebanon and Israel. 1982. Why did the Israelis invade? The PLO, headed up by my old friend Bloody Yassir Arifat, was headquartered in Beirut and was launching attacks across the border on the Israelis. The Israelis did what any sensible country would do when being attacked--wipe out their attackers. To do so, they invaded Lebanon, shelled the mess outta Beirut and forced Arafat and his minions (name-calling intentional) to flee to Tunisia, where they were much lees likely to do damage to Israel.

2006. A radical Muslim Group called Hezbollah gains power, arms soldiers, and starts launching rockets at Israeli civilians from Southern Lebanon. The Israelis retaliate and bomb the mess outta thge Hezbos, wherever they can find them.

So where is the intended civil war? If you look at the news now, if any such plan was in place it backfired. Though certainly weakened politically, Hezbollah, through a very clever PR campaign, is getting the Lebanese people on their side through the supposed reconstruction of the country's infrastructure. Three weeks ago, they staged massive rally with 100,000's of poeple in the capital to demand that the US/Israel backed PM/President step down.

How was this situation created? In my humble opinion, Israel could have avoided the situation completely by crushing Hezbollah when it had the chance. But, if you will recall, Olmert backed down at the last minute when his generals were rearing to go. (It is worth noting here that Olmert is the only Israeli PM who has never served in the military.) This allowed Hezbollah to survive another day.

Some may point to this fact as proof of the theory in the article, but have a look at these.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=169680

The following wikipedia articel quotes John Bolton against being a ceasefire and quotes G. W. Several times as saying Hezbollah is "The root of the problem." That seems like a fairly clear indication that the US wants the Hezbos wiped out.

Anyways, I'll wait for a reply, and keep researching...

I'd suggest you don't pay much heed to that article. There's quite a few factual errors. For one, Hezbollah is genuinely helping the south rebuild (they live there, afterall), for another the Hezbollah rockets started only days *after* Israel declared war and started blowing things up. Also there's the myth that Hezbollah was close to being defeated - that's utter nonsense. Hezbollah could have lasted another month easily. They suffered almost no losses in the war - by all accounts it was a total victory for them.

If you really want to do some learning about the Israel-Lebanon war, I suggest you read a few of Uri Avnery's articles about it.

Here's a google link to get you started :
http://www.google.com/search?q=uri+...arch=http://www.counterpunch.org&start=0&sa=N

So what do you propose they should have done with Japan in WW2. Yeah the U.S has looked into using tactical nukes. The likelihood of them actually doing it is very slim. After all they have had plenty of opportunities to use them.

Indeed - but the chances of a country like Iran using nukes (assuming they had them) is even less slim.

So why are they going through all that trouble to not co-operate. You would trust the Iranians not to build nukes then.

To be honest, I don't really know. It doesn't make sense. To build nukes you need to have centrifuges which can refine the uranium to a certain point, and that's far far above the point that uranium needs to be refined if you're going to use it as an energy source. It's not practically possible to create weapons-grade uranium from such centrifuges.

It's more likely that the nuke stuff is just a cover, with the real reasons being making sure that Iran doesn't sell its oil for euros, and to remove them as a potential threat to Israel, seeing how Iran is still a regional power.

Maybe not full invasion but destroy their capabilities. What principles are those? It's becoming more and more evident that you don't seem to have a problem with the Iranian leadership. Is that true?

I have more of a problem with nations invading other nations than I have problems with the leadership of Iran. I would also point out that Iran was moving towards more progressive standards until Bush opened his fat yap in his axis of evil speech. Next thing you know, Ahamadinejad's won a surprise victory in the elections.

Secondly, all things considered, any invasion would be highly unlikely to bring about the change you suggest. If it isn't going to work, why should we support it?

A rogue nation to you("you" not being "the rest of the world). Others believe having tyrannical fundamentalist armed with nukes is unacceptable and a chance not worth taking.

No, a rogue nation by any standard of the term. A rogue nation is one that does not follow international law. If the US starts waging wars of aggression then it becomes a rogue nation, by definition.

Pity the Lebanese civilians they used as shields. While Lebanon is now in turmoil with Hizbollah trying to sieze power. I wonder how the infidels will enjoy living under them and destruction coming Lebanon's way when Hizbbollah attack Israel again. The media and lefties in the west can only protect Hizbollah so much.

No different than the Israelis there. And more to the point, Hezbollah was accused of using civilians as shields indirectly by holding out in houses and the like - it's not like they were kidnapping civilians and forcing them to stand infront of their fighters.

They invade for their own and our(yes! you and me) security and freedom. Zim isn't as big a threat to freedom as say Iran.

Funny. North Korea actively claims to have a nuclear weapon. Clearly they're a far greater threat to security and freedom. Why is the US half-heartedly engaging in diplomatic dialogue and trying to ignore the problem instead of drumming up support for an invasion?

So no, they don't do it for the greater good. They do it because it serves their position as the sole superpower. And you're still ignoring the countless examples where the US has helped to install the most brutal of dictators when they were US friendly.

Did you forget about the Cold War. The battle between ideologies was bloodiest and dirtiest in the third world.

Last I checked the Cold War was over. Yet it's still business as usual in Washington - care to explain that one?

The U.S is defending itself whether you like it or not. You might prefer to see them wiped out but they sure as hell aren't going to lie back and let it happen.

Only in the way Saddam 'defended' himself from his political opponents.