Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[Xarog]

Missed this as I was busy writing my post and didn't see the new posts :

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.

Now the PR machine is trying to drum up support for invading Iran. People have been mistranslating Ahamadinejad's speeches in order to make him sound like a rabid lunatic. For instance, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote actually translates to "Israel needs to dissappear from the page of time", and when taken in context with the rest of the speech, refers specifically to Israel as ruled by the Zionist regime (which is persecuting Palestinians - and if you don't agree with that, then it's enough that Amadinejad does ) rather than hatred against Jews themselves. There's at least one Jew serving in Iran as an MP, if I recall correctly.

The recent PR about the holocaust summit in Iran is also taken out of context - the summit was only started as a response to the cartoons in a Danish newspaper which depicted Mohammed. This was offensive to the Muslims, but the west claimed it was "Free speech". Iran then held the Holocaust summit because it's the West's sacred cow (questioning it is really really taboo, afterall). The west responded by claiming that Ahamadinejad's an anti-semite - So much for supporting free speech. The point was proven though; the West only cares about "free speech" when its sacred cows aren't the one's being attacked/defamed by the free speech.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=812602&postcount=65

According to whose definition and authority, yours?

Already answered above.

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?

Since Israel refused to negotiate with Hezbollah regarding the prisoners until they kidnapped Israelis, yes. Those Lebanese civilians are innocent and are/were being held unjustly. In the past Hezbollah had kidnapped Israeli soldiers before in border skirmishes in order to negotiate for the release of some Lebanese civilians and had secured their release.

Hezbollah was not trying to target Israeli citizens with rockets. They were actually trying to target Israeli military installations that the ISRAELI'S built in desnely populated arab areas. (So much for only one side using civilian shields, eh?) In some cases they came very close and in other cases they actually hit their targets. Hezbollah had a rough idea of what they were aiming at because they had managed to send a remote drone over Israeli territory. Secondly, Hezbollah only started firing rockets after Israel had been bombing Lebanon for over 2 days. Thirdly, look at the civilian to soldier death ration of the Israelis and Lebanese and tell me which of the two sides fought a cleaner war.

Finally, whats your source that they hid their rocket trucks in civilian areas? That sounds like BS to me. If a truck was in amongst buildings it would either be easily spotted from the air or in an enclosed space which would make it useless as a launching platform. As far as I know, they fired their rockets from moving positions and camoflaged them in nearby vegetation.

Chavez doesn't exactly represent liberal democracy anyway.

Right, he supports a socialist democracy - but it's still a democracy, so what's your point?

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

You're misreading the quote. It says that Israel is the 16th wealthiest nation in the world. It then says that it has a higher per capita income than Ireland etc. etc. Nowhere does it claim that Israel has the 16th highest per capita income in the world.

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.

Et tu, Brute?

 

[Syndyre]

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.

Even if they had a reform president the Ayatollahs were and still are the ones with the real power.

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.

The problem is who defines that law? The UN just embarasses itself by putting countries like Libya on the Human Rights Commission etc., makes it hard to take it seriously.

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.

Either way its still likely to increase civilian casualties.

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?

The North Koreans are only interested in self-preservation and so in a lot of ways are probably less threatening than a religious zealot like Ahmidenijad.

 

[Xarog]

Even if they had a reform president the Ayatollahs were and still are the ones with the real power.

But reform presidents do have some power. Reform presidents can make changes which the public can grow accustomed to, and in time, cause the Ayatollahs to become unpopular, which can lead to a change in governance.

The problem is who defines that law? The UN just embarasses itself by putting countries like Libya on the Human Rights Commission etc., makes it hard to take it seriously.

When a country joins the UN it agrees to abide by the laws governing the UN which makes it illegal to wage a war of agression against another country. There are other laws. This is the only basis by which a country can become a "rogue nation". Any other use of the term renders it meaningless, and as such is just a conveniently ugly sounding term by which to describe another country that you don't like.

Either way its still likely to increase civilian casualties.

Hezbollah had no alternative. It wasn't as if they chose to hide amongst civilian buildings - it was literally the only place they could go.

The North Koreans are only interested in self-preservation and so in a lot of ways are probably less threatening than a religious zealot like Ahmidenijad.

What evidence do you have that Ahamadinejad is interested in anything but self-preservation?

 

[Amerikanse]

...for another the Hezbollah rockets started only days *after* Israel declared war and started blowing things up.

This is an important point, so I'm going to call you on it. According to everything I found, Hezbollah started it. The last three articles differ slightly by listing the beginning of hostilities as border raid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_(July)
http://www.answers.com/topic/2006-israel-lebanon-conflict
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/israel.lebanon.timeline/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/819200.stm
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/lebanontime1.html

 

[Syndyre]

Hezbollah was not trying to target Israeli citizens with rockets. They were actually trying to target Israeli military installations that the ISRAELI'S built in desnely populated arab areas. (So much for only one side using civilian shields, eh?)

There's a major difference between building military installations near major cities etc. and actively putting "troops" inside a city.

Thirdly, look at the civilian to soldier death ration of the Israelis and Lebanese and tell me which of the two sides fought a cleaner war.

That doesn't really prove much considering Hezbollah doesn't have a regular army.

Finally, whats your source that they hid their rocket trucks in civilian areas? That sounds like BS to me. If a truck was in amongst buildings it would either be easily spotted from the air or in an enclosed space which would make it useless as a launching platform. As far as I know, they fired their rockets from moving positions and camoflaged them in nearby vegetation.

Honestly I can't remember the source, like everyone else I don't embed links into my brain with everything I read so unless I'm going to spend the night on Google I can't post a source for everything, as you can't either. I remember hearing about the rockets being fired from vegetation but a lot of the rockets aren't even launched from trucks and can even be launched from a simple wooden frame, so they can be launched from anywhere I think.

 

[Syndyre]

But reform presidents do have some power. Reform presidents can make changes which the public can grow accustomed to, and in time, cause the Ayatollahs to become unpopular, which can lead to a change in governance.

Hopefully, although I think the Ayatollahs are unfortunately pretty entrenched.

When a country joins the UN it agrees to abide by the laws governing the UN which makes it illegal to wage a war of agression against another country. There are other laws. This is the only basis by which a country can become a "rogue nation". Any other use of the term renders it meaningless, and as such is just a conveniently ugly sounding term by which to describe another country that you don't like.

I agree I'm just not so sure its such a good basis.

What evidence do you have that Ahamadinejad is interested in anything but self-preservation?

Well for one the "wiped off the map" comment, although you posted somewhere that was the wrong interpretation, that was the first time I've heard that though.

 

[Xarog]

This is an important point, so I'm going to call you on it. According to everything I found, Hezbollah started it. The last three articles differ slightly by listing the beginning of hostilities as border raid.

I did not claim that Hezbollah did not trigger the hostilities. To be honest I wasn't aware of the fact that they used rockets as a diversionary tactic, but a handful of rockets in (what was then) a skirmish is vastly different to launching thousands of rockets at various targets within Israel.

There's a major difference between building military installations near major cities etc. and actively putting "troops" inside a city.

If I recall correctly, one of these installations was a military base. Does that not count?

That doesn't really prove much considering Hezbollah doesn't have a regular army.

How so?

Honestly I can't remember the source, like everyone else I don't embed links into my brain with everything I read so unless I'm going to spend the night on Google I can't post a source for everything, as you can't either. I remember hearing about the rockets being fired from vegetation but a lot of the rockets aren't even launched from trucks and can even be launched from a simple wooden frame, so they can be launched from anywhere I think.

Well I've never heard of anything about the rockets being launched from wooden frames in the past conflict. Everything I've read points to, and only to, mobile launching platforms.

I agree I'm just not so sure its such a good basis.

Ideally, I don't think it's such a bad basis. In practice it's a different story and I do think the UN needs a bit of an overhaul. However, if because you believe that it's not a good basis, you don't accuse any nation of being a rogue nation, then I see no problem with your viewpoint.

Well for one the "wiped off the map" comment, although you posted somewhere that was the wrong interpretation, that was the first time I've heard that though.

Ahamadinejad may be many things, but he isn't an idiot. His comments are carefully phrased, despite the West's deliberate mistranslations.

As another example, many people have declared him an anti-semite because he is a holocaust denier. However, he has never actually denied that the holocaust took place, he has only questioned the degree to which the Zionists use it for political leverage.

I suggest you do some research on your own and see what you come up with. For whatever reason, the West is trying to drum up support for a war against Iran - the truth is always the first casualty of war and with that saying in mind, a healthy dose of skepticism should be applied to any of Ahamadinejad's quotes. It's rather easy to claim that someone is a raving lunatic when you put words in their mouth.

 

[Syndyre]

If I recall correctly, one of these installations was a military base. Does that not count?

What do you mean does it not count?

How so?

Its sometimes hard to differentiate civilian from "military" deaths when the "military" involved is a guerilla organisation, the lines tend to be blurred. although I don't know the specifics in this case.

Ideally, I don't think it's such a bad basis. In practice it's a different story and I do think the UN needs a bit of an overhaul. However, if because you believe that it's not a good basis, you don't accuse any nation of being a rogue nation, then I see no problem with your viewpoint.

I think terms like "rogue nation" are generally just rhetoric anyway.

I suggest you do some research on your own and see what you come up with. For whatever reason, the West is trying to drum up support for a war against Iran - the truth is always the first casualty of war and with that saying in mind, a healthy dose of skepticism should be applied to any of Ahamadinejad's quotes. It's rather easy to claim that someone is a raving lunatic when you put words in their mouth.

True, although I've heard of some leaders saying different things in Arabic to what they say in English, ultimately everybody lies and everybody has an agenda, on both sides.

 

[Xarog]

What do you mean does it not count?

You said that Israel was not putting troops inside any cities. I was asking you if military bases count or not, because if they do then they do put troops in or at the very least next to cities.

I would also point out that when the ground troops finally invaded Lebanon, holding up in the towns and cities is exactly what the army did.

Its sometimes hard to differentiate civilian from "military" deaths when the "military" involved is a guerilla organisation, the lines tend to be blurred. although I don't know the specifics in this case.

There were 39 Israeli civilians killed by rocket attacks, and another 4 who died from heart attacks during the rocket attacks. 119 IDF soldiers were killed in the conflict.

On the other hand of the 1100 or so Lebanese casualties, only 184 of them were Hezbollah fighters.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/crooke10132006.html

The second link provides the Hezbollah count and the reasons for the exact number. I provided the first link for interest's sake since I found it to be quite a coherent and insightful explanation of what actually happened.

True, although I've heard of some leaders saying different things in Arabic to what they say in English, ultimately everybody lies and everybody has an agenda, on both sides.

Well, I'm not sure on that either way - I guess if you don't actually speak Arabic then the best option is to try and look for translations from as many sources as possible in the hopes of finding an accurate one.

 

[Syndyre]

You said that Israel was not putting troops inside any cities. I was asking you if military bases count or not, because if they do then they do put troops in or at the very least next to cities.

I would also point out that when the ground troops finally invaded Lebanon, holding up in the towns and cities is exactly what the army did.

I suppose nothing's black and white.

There were 39 Israeli civilians killed by rocket attacks, and another 4 who died from heart attacks during the rocket attacks. 119 IDF soldiers were killed in the conflict.

On the other hand of the 1100 or so Lebanese casualties, only 184 of them were Hezbollah fighters.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ12Ak01.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/crooke10132006.html

The second link provides the Hezbollah count and the reasons for the exact number. I provided the first link for interest's sake since I found it to be quite a coherent and insightful explanation of what actually happened.

.

Thanks I'll have a look when I have time.

 

[d0b33]

Nicely done Xarog

unfortunately some members(Amerikanse for eg) have been had by PSYOPS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(United_States)

 

[kilo39]

Yeah, nice posts Xarog:

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.

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.

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

... and BTW the japanese were desperate to surrender: america ignored them to play with its new toys (twice!!) (A special show for the ruskies.)

... and depleted uranium munitions (a us favourite) qualify as nuclear weapons and are doing similar damage (large clouds/pockets of radioactivity have been found all over the area extending to Europe.) ... HaHa. Never mind Gulf War Syndrome.

... ja, america cares for its own and is promoting [-]radiation sickness[/-] democracy.

... Mmmmm... so I wonder who was really guilty of starting and sustaining the Cold War?!!

 

[kilo39]

Strangely enough (not ) I jumped straight into this thread without reading LG's first post. Now that I have read it some comment:

To paint with some very broad strokes (and not necessarily to quote anything in particular, general knowledge, thumbsucks, speculation: though not so much )

If we consider the document 'Project for a New America' (then this is a very broad document and it's a long time since I've read it): one of the key elements of this document is the draw down in american military power. Closing of bases throughout Europe, etc... I don't think you guys realise how big this draw down was: dozens of bases closed, whole infrastructure changes. These eventually extended to the US itself but more than the draw down in bases and the military in general is their budget cuts, the impact on whole town, villages, cities even. Smaller military, smaller budgets lead to higher unemployment; even a curtailment in technology research, etc, etc. It's a very long list. This before we even get to issues such as oil. Also (correct me if I'm wrong) the vietnam war, the cold war. Costly as these wars were they supported massive (local) economies but beyond that gave America an edge: not only in technology, cutting edge research but also in terms of "state of mind." IOW a country with a smaller military and no major wars becomes "softer." No point in having a military apparatus if there's no one to fight. So we need to create these enemies to have someone to fight to keep the whole military apparatus in play and in power (and with their associated support of industry, jobs and the mama and papa store down the road that supplies the local military base.) It is a massive industry (the biggest?) Its loss would be a devastating blow both economically and even as a "state of mind." I mean what would we do with that lean green fighting machine if we lived in a world without war?

Of course there are aspects of "the view" of americas traditional role in the world: benevolent solver of problems, the worlds policeman. Yes a more specialized smaller more mobile military to "impose order" in those hotspots but what we have today is way beyond that. If we look at americas fighting machine is little different today than it was at the height of soviet power; in the sense that overall budget going into things like "national security" is way up there in the stratosphere far beyond that which would have been the case if clintons lean years for the military had of come to pass.

With all the above oil is almost a sideshow and the sky high budget of monies spent on a war in Iraq (in comparison to oil return) is miniscule to the real return in jobs, and overall benefit to the economy (wherever the american military doth go )

If we look deeper/broader then other patterns become evident: for instance americas role in south & central america: horrific placement of dictators, mass exterminations of peoples, disappearances (Pinochat, a long list of others)... We could argue that these were in the days of the cold war but americas modis operandi doesn't change: they execute whatever is necessary to their greater plan (no morals, guilt, whatever.) A thought: and of course the tentacles of power spread like a vine: these are long histories of manipulating events, power games etc. In this world there are no laws only levers and keeping those levers as secret as possible while knowing everyone else's.

And some wild speculation. I always remember a line from Breyten Breytenbach: for every (visible) power in the world there is an equal and opposite (invisible) power. For every power there is an equal and opposite anti-power and both are equally strong. (For every government there is an equal and opposite anti-government.) My point is: there are many forces moving in the world... as Rummy used to say: there are some facts we know we know, some facts we know we don't know and some we don't know we don't know (or similar.) I am obliquely pointing to such forces as the Mafia, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Osama bin Laden, while studying at a university, was impressed by several professors with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood but disagreed with their non-violence methodology. Among its members was Muhammad Qutb, an Egyptian, whose brother, the late Sayyid Qutb, had written one of the Brotherhood’s most important tracts about anti-colonial jihad (struggle), Milestones.

(inception in 1928) It has previously been and continues to be strongly opposed to colonialism, and was an important actor in the struggle against Western military and economic domination in Egypt and other Muslim nations during the early 20th century. Their goal as stated by founder Hassan al-Banna was the “doctrine of reclaiming Islam’s manifest destiny; an empire, founded in the seventh century, that stretched from Spain to Indonesia.”
-
Before the U.S. removed the Taliban regime from Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood operated training camps in that country. Furthermore, the Brotherhood worked with Kashmiri militants and worked to expand Islamist influence in Central Asian states such as Tajikistan.
-
The Muslim Brotherhood has been active in the US since the 1960s. Its goals have included propagating Islam and creating havens for Muslims in the US, and integrating Muslims. A main strategy has been dawah or Islamic renewal and outreach-
-
of the support of Western governments for the Mujahadeen and Jihadi Islamic fighters, who were trained and sent into Afghanistan. With the close support and advice of CIA paramilitaries, these Islamic jihadists helped defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
-
of Islamic Balkanization, where the CIA secretly supported Islamic movements within the Soviet Union to utilize them as Anti-Communist insurgents in the event of war. The consequence of this CIA program is the present-day Islamic Chechan separatist conflict that the Russians are fighting.
-
how the Israeli government supported the growth of Hamas as a tool to fight the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO was always viewed as the major threat to Israel,
[refs below]

 

[kilo39]

II

it is fair to say that the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Brotherhood are intimately intertwined beasts, and when you get down to it: the cia is an equal partner.

And while mentioning this let's go back a bit in history to the 2nd WW and americas collaboration with the mafia in the Italian, European campaign.

My point? Here we have an organisation with its tentacles in every pie: jihadis in Afghanistan, the mafia; organisations that are anti-government. In fact we can't even say "anti-government" because that is not the stance. The mafia credo is, if the government can kill people in the name of law and order and sovereignty then they (the mafia) can also kill people too in protection of their families (food on the table, etc.)

"The mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions – normally belonging to public authorities – over a specific territory […]. It is therefore a form of criminality implying some conditions: the existence of a modern state claiming the exclusive right to legitimate monopoly over violence; an economy that is free of feudal bonds […]; the existence of violent people able to operate on their own, imposing their mediation even on the ruling classes".

(where am I going with this?)

Point: let's talk smoke and mirrors. An organisation that stands above governments (it has no sense of law and order only its own.) It views the world as an economic landscape: bringing governments to power, taking them down. It works with any organization including the Mafia, Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Brotherhood to further aims consistent with its belief: economic dominance and security in an uncertain world.

Further when I look at such organisations as muslim brotherhood and their very real presence in the usa and the general state of the world, to me, there is no question that Islamism is looking for a republic. There are multi muslim ethnic conflicts around the world; even the recent story in the news of Kenya arresting fleeing muslim fighters.

In writing as I do I almost support the views of Alan85 but this is not it. I have a very narrow view of liberty which is: do not fight wars beyond your borders, if you threaten my space I will punch you in the nose. Of course where this gets somewhat more complex is in the notion of pre-emption.

... my point... ultimately if we look into the nature of the tentacles then on its most simple level it is a world of instability and insecurity: the very forces that have kept americas economy turning: no matter the cost or the deficit (as someone said: cheap at the price.)

and if we look a little deeper then we should realise that americas surveillance technology which is supposedly used for national security is equally used for economic security. The whole case of echelon and eavesdropping on contracts and business deals: and using that intelligence for americas own economic gain. It's a war out there (no matter the front.)

A recent story: eavesdropping on calls coming out of the Ritz: in this case Lady Di's. Why do you think the cia is listening to the Ritzs phone calls? On the off-chance that Osama is going to book in? Not. Economic espionage is the only reasonable conclusion.

The cia is working for the multi-nationals (boeing, lockhead, halliburton, disney!) The multi-nationals are america. Economic security no matter what. Oil is a big part of that but [this] is so much bigger.

Mafia
Devil's Game
Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic Brotherhood

Conclusion: an authority above government that ensures americas economic dominance and gain (no matter the individual politics)

... reminds me of the stories of special forces arrested in Iraq dressed as Jihadis with bombs and munitions in their cars.

Q: "Who killed JFK?"
A: "The military industrial complex"

The jihadi terrorists ARE the american government; it's not about muslim wars/domination it's about keeping the wheels of industry turning (and ensuring the really well connected people get richer.)

 

[Nanfeishen]

@Kilo -- Awsome post and good reading

 

[kilo39]

Thanks Nanfeishen.

And the trolls dry up like morning rain.

 

[NewsFlash]

The old conspiracy's, at least keeps you busy.

 

[Xarog]

CONSPIRACIES!!!!!

 

[kilo39]

Conspiracies? I don't see how? The evidence chain is quite clear.

In fact I make a slightly wrong assumption: I say it is the american government but in fact its not them, they are a big player but it is an organisation that stands above government (much as the mafia do.)

 

[NewsFlash]

CONSPIRACIES!!!!!

Try Google spell checker. It is happy with both. You got the drift did you not? So stop trying to be an intelectual ass and rather explain the difference if you want to contribute to society and upliftment of the English language unless you only want to be an elitists ass to gain bragging rights, if so then piss of and leave my self taught english spelling and grammar.

Thus in short explain!