Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?

[Termagant]

I think one of the major outcomes of the Iraq war is that any Commander in Chief for the next few years will be more careful in the application of military force. And any Congress of the United States will be more hesitent to write a blank check for military action. The Bush Administration cavalierly invaded Iraq and Congress did not provide adequate checking or discussion. Advice from some military personnel was ignored so that the war would be "cheap and easy." With the problems in Iraq, the philosophy used when invading Iraq is weakened in serious circles of debate.

If the US had succeeded in quickly pacifying and democratizing Iraq, as ridiculous as that sounds, would the long term consequences have been worse? With added confidence in the Iraq invasion method, would Bush have invaded Iran and other Middle Eastern states? And would future presidents be tempted to quickly resort to military force? If problems didn't occur in Iraq, they could easily have occured in other invaded nations, with worse consequences.

In some polls of people around the world they list America as the greatest threat to world stability. Is the world safer when America is hesitant to use military force? Is the loss of life in Iraq of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians worth it to make future American leaders more cautious and thoughful in their use of force, even if that attitude only lasts for a decade?

In the future, will Bush look back and think that invading Iraq was good for the nation, because it provided a cautionary example for future presidents? That is an interesting legacy.

 

[sandorski]

Just like Vietnam. It'll probably be a couple decades befoe the US tries this again. Unless of course someone else(other Nation invading someone) does something really stupid. Despite the hatred of the UN being at an all time high in the US, I suspect that the US will become much more UN friendly in the next few years as it provides a Moral protection against Military action.

 

[shadow9d9]

"Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?"

It isn't possible to succeed in Iraq. Period.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?"

It isn't possible to succeed in Iraq. Period.

False. That depends entirely on your definition of success.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?"

It isn't possible to succeed in Iraq. Period.

False. That depends entirely on your definition of success.

This sounds familiar...

"Did you have sex with Ms Lewinsky, President Clinton?"

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Termagant
I think one of the major outcomes of the Iraq war is that any Commander in Chief for the next few years will be more careful in the application of military force. And any Congress of the United States will be more hesitent to write a blank check for military action. The Bush Administration cavalierly invaded Iraq and Congress did not provide adequate checking or discussion. Advice from some military personnel was ignored so that the war would be "cheap and easy." With the problems in Iraq, the philosophy used when invading Iraq is weakened in serious circles of debate.

If the US had succeeded in quickly pacifying and democratizing Iraq, as ridiculous as that sounds, would the long term consequences have been worse? With added confidence in the Iraq invasion method, would Bush have invaded Iran and other Middle Eastern states? And would future presidents be tempted to quickly resort to military force? If problems didn't occur in Iraq, they could easily have occured in other invaded nations, with worse consequences.

In some polls of people around the world they list America as the greatest threat to world stability. Is the world safer when America is hesitant to use military force? Is the loss of life in Iraq of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians worth it to make future American leaders more cautious and thoughful in their use of force, even if that attitude only lasts for a decade?

In the future, will Bush look back and think that invading Iraq was good for the nation, because it provided a cautionary example for future presidents? That is an interesting legacy.

Heh, the next time another cowboy president comes into office without regard for history or advice from intelligent people, everything is gonna repeat itself.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?"

It isn't possible to succeed in Iraq. Period.

False. That depends entirely on your definition of success.

There are no definitions of success that would resemble the situation in Iraq now or in the next decade at this rate.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The war in Iraq was a complete failure. But the lesson to be learnt is a completely different one than presented here; Military force isn't meant for building, it's meant for destroying. And US succeeded in destroying Iraq with flying marks. So there is no problem with the US military nor with the use of force.

The problem was that until 9/11, nobody in the west paid any attention to the Arabs. Now the average American begins to understand what Arabs are like.

I'll put it this way: If you recreated the acts of the war with Iraq with any other Western country, you'd get a huge success. Japan, Germany? They suffered much more damage on all accounts, and yet see where they are today.

But then, when you apply these actions to a country like Iraq, with population who's stuck somewhere in the 12th century as far as progression and mentality go, you don't get the result you expect. It's like going back 700 years, taking a bunch of Barbarian savages, giving them arms and money and sending them off to build a democracy with other savages.

The correct lesson is that the Arab world has to change for itself. But rather than changing it, the West should put a firm pricetag on NOT changing - that is, punishing these countries for harboring terrorists or any direct or indirect aggression.
Eventually, Arabs will cease being the tribal society they are and become democracies just like the West did. But it's gonna take lots of time, maybe even hundreds of years. It took the Christian society hundreds of years and billions of gallons of blood until democracy was widely adopted.

Arabs need dictators. They need firm ruling. They need people like Saddam Hussein. Best US can do is to make sure these tyrrants side with it, like King Hussein of Jordan or Mubarak in Egypt.

And finally, I believe Bush is a good person with good intents. Honestly. He might not be the sharpest guy, but at least he isn't impotent Clinton style. It's easy to be favorably remembered when you do nothing considerable, at least in terms of foreign policy.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I was talking to man at a local conveinience store who owned 5 such stores in the area where I live.
His exact words on this subject were very enlightening yet truthful...
he said that to get us to leave the country all appearances of becoming a democratic nation will happen.
Once we leave true civil war will break out. As a nation we must remember that in that part of the world the people for the most part are use to living in those conditions and have been doing so for many many centiries...not decades as some would have you believe.
End of the story!!

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The war in Iraq was a complete failure. But the lesson to be learnt is a completely different one than presented here; Military force isn't meant for building, it's meant for destroying. And US succeeded in destroying Iraq with flying marks. So there is no problem with the US military nor with the use of force.

The problem was that until 9/11, nobody in the west paid any attention to the Arabs. Now the average American begins to understand what Arabs are like.

I'll put it this way: If you recreated the acts of the war with Iraq with any other Western country, you'd get a huge success. Japan, Germany? They suffered much more damage on all accounts, and yet see where they are today.

But then, when you apply these actions to a country like Iraq, with population who's stuck somewhere in the 12th century as far as progression and mentality go, you don't get the result you expect. It's like going back 700 years, taking a bunch of Barbarian savages, giving them arms and money and sending them off to build a democracy with other savages.

The correct lesson is that the Arab world has to change for itself. But rather than changing it, the West should put a firm pricetag on NOT changing - that is, punishing these countries for harboring terrorists or any direct or indirect aggression.
Eventually, Arabs will cease being the tribal society they are and become democracies just like the West did. But it's gonna take lots of time, maybe even hundreds of years. It took the Christian society hundreds of years and billions of gallons of blood until democracy was widely adopted.

Arabs need dictators. They need firm ruling. They need people like Saddam Hussein. Best US can do is to make sure these tyrrants side with it, like King Hussein of Jordan or Mubarak in Egypt.

And finally, I believe Bush is a good person with good intents. Honestly. He might not be the sharpest guy, but at least he isn't impotent Clinton style. It's easy to be favorably remembered when you do nothing considerable, at least in terms of foreign policy.

Arab scum, Israeli scum, its all the same out there. You're no better than the Arabs are and I'd argue you're far more savage since you have access to sophisticated weapons courtesy of the US.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The war in Iraq was a complete failure. But the lesson to be learnt is a completely different one than presented here; Military force isn't meant for building, it's meant for destroying. And US succeeded in destroying Iraq with flying marks. So there is no problem with the US military nor with the use of force.

The problem was that until 9/11, nobody in the west paid any attention to the Arabs. Now the average American begins to understand what Arabs are like.

I'll put it this way: If you recreated the acts of the war with Iraq with any other Western country, you'd get a huge success. Japan, Germany? They suffered much more damage on all accounts, and yet see where they are today.

But then, when you apply these actions to a country like Iraq, with population who's stuck somewhere in the 12th century as far as progression and mentality go, you don't get the result you expect. It's like going back 700 years, taking a bunch of Barbarian savages, giving them arms and money and sending them off to build a democracy with other savages.

The correct lesson is that the Arab world has to change for itself. But rather than changing it, the West should put a firm pricetag on NOT changing - that is, punishing these countries for harboring terrorists or any direct or indirect aggression.
Eventually, Arabs will cease being the tribal society they are and become democracies just like the West did. But it's gonna take lots of time, maybe even hundreds of years. It took the Christian society hundreds of years and billions of gallons of blood until democracy was widely adopted.

Arabs need dictators. They need firm ruling. They need people like Saddam Hussein. Best US can do is to make sure these tyrrants side with it, like King Hussein of Jordan or Mubarak in Egypt.

And finally, I believe Bush is a good person with good intents. Honestly. He might not be the sharpest guy, but at least he isn't impotent Clinton style. It's easy to be favorably remembered when you do nothing considerable, at least in terms of foreign policy.

Arab scum, Israeli scum, its all the same out there. You're no better than the Arabs are and I'd argue you're far more savage since you have access to sophisticated weapons courtesy of the US.

Only in your own, as well as other Muslims eyes, Israel and Arabs are on the same level.
To any other onlooker, Israel is the democratic, Western, Industrialized nation, while the Arabs are just the 12th century Barbarians from the example above. Egypt has a GDP of like what, 1400$? The only Arab success stories are located in the Persian gulf, and even those are threatend by Arabs themselves, and if not them, then other Muslims (Iran).

Egypt spent the 20th century mostly trying to destroy Israel. Look where it is now.

When Israel was formed by UN mandate it became an arranged democratic country overnight. It had no arms, no funding and no economy. It withstood countless attacks by Arabs and still remained an enlightened democracy. Considering its struggle and the neighbours, it should have been a dictatorship long ago.

When Iraq was given a democracy by the US, as well as arms, huge amounts of money, and all the military support a nation could have, with no external threats, all that happend is that they slaughtered each other.

And that's only when speaking of states. Go down to the individual level and a whole new world opens up... I'm sure that as a Muslim who obviously knows something about Muslim/Arab habits, you know what I'm talking about. How the old habit of killing your own sister had she "desecrated the family honor"? Blood revenge, the main tool of settling conflicts around Arab villages here? You see, you could maybe fool the average Californian in regards to who Arabs are, but I live with them.

But keep your wise observations coming. I'm enjoying myself...

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The war in Iraq was a complete failure. But the lesson to be learnt is a completely different one than presented here; Military force isn't meant for building, it's meant for destroying. And US succeeded in destroying Iraq with flying marks. So there is no problem with the US military nor with the use of force.

The problem was that until 9/11, nobody in the west paid any attention to the Arabs. Now the average American begins to understand what Arabs are like.

I'll put it this way: If you recreated the acts of the war with Iraq with any other Western country, you'd get a huge success. Japan, Germany? They suffered much more damage on all accounts, and yet see where they are today.

But then, when you apply these actions to a country like Iraq, with population who's stuck somewhere in the 12th century as far as progression and mentality go, you don't get the result you expect. It's like going back 700 years, taking a bunch of Barbarian savages, giving them arms and money and sending them off to build a democracy with other savages.

The correct lesson is that the Arab world has to change for itself. But rather than changing it, the West should put a firm pricetag on NOT changing - that is, punishing these countries for harboring terrorists or any direct or indirect aggression.
Eventually, Arabs will cease being the tribal society they are and become democracies just like the West did. But it's gonna take lots of time, maybe even hundreds of years. It took the Christian society hundreds of years and billions of gallons of blood until democracy was widely adopted.

Arabs need dictators. They need firm ruling. They need people like Saddam Hussein. Best US can do is to make sure these tyrrants side with it, like King Hussein of Jordan or Mubarak in Egypt.

And finally, I believe Bush is a good person with good intents. Honestly. He might not be the sharpest guy, but at least he isn't impotent Clinton style. It's easy to be favorably remembered when you do nothing considerable, at least in terms of foreign policy.

Arab scum, Israeli scum, its all the same out there. You're no better than the Arabs are and I'd argue you're far more savage since you have access to sophisticated weapons courtesy of the US.

Only in your own, as well as other Muslims eyes, Israel and Arabs are on the same level.
To any other onlooker, Israel is the democratic, Western, Industrialized nation, while the Arabs are just the 12th century Barbarians from the example above. Egypt has a GDP of like what, 1400$? The only Arab success stories are located in the Persian gulf, and even those are threatend by Arabs themselves, and if not them, then Muslims.

Egypt spent the 20th century mostly trying to destroy Israel. Look where it is now.

When Israel was formed by UN mandate it became an arranged democratic country overnight. It had no arms, no funding and no economy. It withstood countless attacks by Arabs and still remained an enlightened democracy. Considering its struggle and the neighbours, it should have been a dictatorship long ago.

When Iraq was given a democracy by the US, as well as arms, huge amounts of money, and all the military support a nation could have, with no external threats, all that happend is that they slaughtered each other.

And that's only when speaking of states. Go down to the individual level and a whole new world opens up... I'm sure that as a Muslim who obviously knows something about Muslim/Arab habits, you know what I'm talking about. How the old habit of killing your own sister had she "desecrated the family honor"? Blood revenge, the main tool of settling conflicts around Arab villages here? You see, you could maybe fool the average Californian in regards to who Arabs are, but I live with them.

But keep your wise observations coming. I'm enjoying myself...

What makes you think I'm Muslim? I guess in your primitive Israeli savage eyes everyone must be Muslim. I'm an agnostic, I'm prety sure I told you that in the past. Democracy and GDP doesn't make for a civilized nation and Israel is far from one. Your military and settlement endeavors are proof of that as is your rabid anti-Muslim/Arab mentality. Like I said, you're no better than the degenerates that live around your borders, you just happen to be more well armed.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The war in Iraq was a complete failure. But the lesson to be learnt is a completely different one than presented here; Military force isn't meant for building, it's meant for destroying. And US succeeded in destroying Iraq with flying marks. So there is no problem with the US military nor with the use of force.

The problem was that until 9/11, nobody in the west paid any attention to the Arabs. Now the average American begins to understand what Arabs are like.

I'll put it this way: If you recreated the acts of the war with Iraq with any other Western country, you'd get a huge success. Japan, Germany? They suffered much more damage on all accounts, and yet see where they are today.

But then, when you apply these actions to a country like Iraq, with population who's stuck somewhere in the 12th century as far as progression and mentality go, you don't get the result you expect. It's like going back 700 years, taking a bunch of Barbarian savages, giving them arms and money and sending them off to build a democracy with other savages.

The correct lesson is that the Arab world has to change for itself. But rather than changing it, the West should put a firm pricetag on NOT changing - that is, punishing these countries for harboring terrorists or any direct or indirect aggression.
Eventually, Arabs will cease being the tribal society they are and become democracies just like the West did. But it's gonna take lots of time, maybe even hundreds of years. It took the Christian society hundreds of years and billions of gallons of blood until democracy was widely adopted.

Arabs need dictators. They need firm ruling. They need people like Saddam Hussein. Best US can do is to make sure these tyrrants side with it, like King Hussein of Jordan or Mubarak in Egypt.

And finally, I believe Bush is a good person with good intents. Honestly. He might not be the sharpest guy, but at least he isn't impotent Clinton style. It's easy to be favorably remembered when you do nothing considerable, at least in terms of foreign policy.

Arab scum, Israeli scum, its all the same out there. You're no better than the Arabs are and I'd argue you're far more savage since you have access to sophisticated weapons courtesy of the US.

Only in your own, as well as other Muslims eyes, Israel and Arabs are on the same level.
To any other onlooker, Israel is the democratic, Western, Industrialized nation, while the Arabs are just the 12th century Barbarians from the example above. Egypt has a GDP of like what, 1400$? The only Arab success stories are located in the Persian gulf, and even those are threatend by Arabs themselves, and if not them, then Muslims.

Egypt spent the 20th century mostly trying to destroy Israel. Look where it is now.

When Israel was formed by UN mandate it became an arranged democratic country overnight. It had no arms, no funding and no economy. It withstood countless attacks by Arabs and still remained an enlightened democracy. Considering its struggle and the neighbours, it should have been a dictatorship long ago.

When Iraq was given a democracy by the US, as well as arms, huge amounts of money, and all the military support a nation could have, with no external threats, all that happend is that they slaughtered each other.

And that's only when speaking of states. Go down to the individual level and a whole new world opens up... I'm sure that as a Muslim who obviously knows something about Muslim/Arab habits, you know what I'm talking about. How the old habit of killing your own sister had she "desecrated the family honor"? Blood revenge, the main tool of settling conflicts around Arab villages here? You see, you could maybe fool the average Californian in regards to who Arabs are, but I live with them.

But keep your wise observations coming. I'm enjoying myself...

What makes you think I'm Muslim? I guess in your primitive Jewish eyes everyone must be Muslim. I'm an agnostic, I'm prety sure I told you that in the past. Democracy and GDP doesn't make for a civilized nation and Israel is far from one. Your military and settlement endeavors are proof of that as is your rabid anti-Muslim/Arab mentality. Like I said, you're no better than the degenerates that live around your borders, you just happen to be more well armed.

Even better. And no, you never mentioned that. I was always under the impression you are Pakistani. Have you ever even been to the Middle East?

I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

In any objective test, Israel is located somewhere in the middle of the pack of Western industrialized nations, in some aspects (tech industry, for example) it's one of the leaders.
It qualifies on all accounts to being a Western state - Freedom of speech, democracy, free economy.

But YOU determined otherwise. I'm just curious to know why. I'm always interested in other's opinion, the stranger the better.

And just for the sake of entertainment, Israel, the savage nation we all grew to loathe, had 8 Nobel prize winners since it's inception in 1948. It has a High-Technology industry rivalling/surpassing any European Country, a larger GDP than Syria, Lebanon, Jordan COMBINED, with less than 10% of the population.

So I'd say that for a savage country, it's doing rather well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Termagant
I think one of the major outcomes of the Iraq war is that any Commander in Chief for the next few years will be more careful in the application of military force. And any Congress of the United States will be more hesitent to write a blank check for military action. The Bush Administration cavalierly invaded Iraq and Congress did not provide adequate checking or discussion. Advice from some military personnel was ignored so that the war would be "cheap and easy." With the problems in Iraq, the philosophy used when invading Iraq is weakened in serious circles of debate.

If the US had succeeded in quickly pacifying and democratizing Iraq, as ridiculous as that sounds, would the long term consequences have been worse? With added confidence in the Iraq invasion method, would Bush have invaded Iran and other Middle Eastern states? And would future presidents be tempted to quickly resort to military force? If problems didn't occur in Iraq, they could easily have occured in other invaded nations, with worse consequences.

In some polls of people around the world they list America as the greatest threat to world stability. Is the world safer when America is hesitant to use military force? Is the loss of life in Iraq of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians worth it to make future American leaders more cautious and thoughful in their use of force, even if that attitude only lasts for a decade?

In the future, will Bush look back and think that invading Iraq was good for the nation, because it provided a cautionary example for future presidents? That is an interesting legacy.

Topic Title: Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?

That's nice

Please explain to me what you would consider as success in Iraq.

Thanks :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Is Failing in Iraq Better in the Long Run for America Than Succeeding in Iraq?"

It isn't possible to succeed in Iraq. Period.

False. That depends entirely on your definition of success.

Please explain your definition of success in Iraq.

Thank you

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar


Even better. And no, you never mentioned that. I was always under the impression you are Pakistani. Have you ever even been to the Middle East?

Actually if you want to get technical I'm racially Afghan with grandparents that used to live in Pakistan at some point. None of that is relevant though since I don't subscribe to any religion and I'm American first and foremost and unlike a lot of others in this country, I don't hold a dual citizenship and thus don't have split loyalty. Why would I want or need to go to the mideast to get a perspective on what society is like there? The reports I see coming from the world media is enough to convince me that the entire mideast is comprised of dictators, thugs, religious fanatics (Israelis like you fall into 2 of those 3 categories while your Arab cousins are all 3).

I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Neither the US or Britain (at least in recent history) have sought to colonize other nations--we've simply reacted in self defense. The US and Britain do not prohibit people from re-entering the nation because they fear it will disrupt their Christian majority--and the aforementioned nations are both secular. Israel is a nation based on the notion of manifest destiny, that you have a right to be there and to expand your borders via colonization because it's your right as Jews. Then you contradict yourselves by claiming Israelis are largely athiests so it seems you can't even get your b.s. straight. Furthermore, Israels conduct this summer was enough to show the world that it's no better than it's savage neighbors and in fact it shares the same mentality of death and destruction; like I said, Israel is just more well-armed.

In any objective test, Israel is located somewhere in the middle of the pack of Western industrialized nations, in some aspects (tech industry, for example) it's one of the leaders.
It qualifies on all accounts to being a Western state - Freedom of speech, democracy, free economy.

Again, you keep bringing up economics and "democracy". None of those excuse Israel for it's savage mentality and aggression. Like I told you in my previous post, economic success doesn't make for a civilized society (just look at the successful yet repressive Chinese regime as an example), rather it's actions, flexibility and viewpoints do. Every Israeli I've come across on these forums has had a bloodthirst to kill and mame and has actively engaged in advocating this mentality to others in the guise of "we're just like you".

But YOU determined otherwise. I'm just curious to know why. I'm always interested in other's opinion, the stranger the better.

You're not curious about anyone's opinions or willing to learn or listen, rather you would like to engage in political mudslinging because it's what you're here for.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar


Even better. And no, you never mentioned that. I was always under the impression you are Pakistani. Have you ever even been to the Middle East?

Actually if you want to get technical I'm racially Afghan with grandparents that used to live in Pakistan at some point. None of that is relevant though since I don't subscribe to any religion and I'm American first and foremost and unlike a lot of others in this country, I don't hold a dual citizenship and thus don't have split loyalty. Why would I want or need to go to the mideast to get a perspective on what society is like there? The reports I see coming from the world media is enough to convince me that the entire mideast is comprised of dictators, thugs, religious fanatics (Israelis like you fall into 2 of those 3 categories while your Arab cousins are all 3).

Someone might assume that your are more partial to this conflicts than most other Americans who really have nothing to do with the Arab world.
In any rate, the number of the religious fanatics in Israel is negligible; Most are aetheists, like it or not. And Israel is certainly isn't a dictatorship - in fact, in the last decade the goverment replacement rate was something once every 1.5 years (!), so that leaves with what, thugs? 1/3.

The US nor Britain (at least in recent history) have not sought to colonize other nations--we've simply reacted in defense of ourselves.

What is "recent" history? US waged war in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is 2003 recent enough for you? I'm not criticizing, merely noting history that conventiently slipped your memory.

Israel is a nation based on the notion of manifest destiny, that you have a right to be there and to expand your borders via colonization because it's your right as Jews.

Nowhere in the declaraion of Israel expanding the Israeli borders is mentioned. Israel had a pretty good record of returning land taken in war in exchange for peace - just like with Egypt, and later the Palestinians (who failed to realize the opportunity, but that's a matter for another discussion).

Then you contradict yourselves by claiming Israelis are largely athiests so it seems you can't even get your b.s. straight.

But they are. The vast majority of Israelis have nothing to do with religion at all. You want to portray Israel as a manifestation of Jewish rage towards the world but Israelis live in Israel because ITS THEIR COUNTRY, not merely because it's a JEWISH country.

Furthermore, Israels conduct this summer was enough to show the world that it's no better than it's savage neighbors and in fact it shares the same mentality of death and destruction; like I said, Israel is just more well-armed.

If that's what you think, then I can sleep soundly tonight - Israel was successful. You see, I'm not a fan of those "asymmetrical warfare" kind of theories. I think those are complete crap; You should fight your enemy with equal, and desirably much greater force.

Lets make something clear here, shall we. The core of settlers that came to Israel PROBABLY had some religious/ethnical motives. Some Jews came here, others went to other places, many to the US.
I'm in Israel because I was born here, 3rd generation to native Israelis. I'm here just like you are in the US; I don't need any messianic justification for that. If I had the decision back in 1948 on where to go, US or Israel, I'd choose the US in a heartbeat. But this isn't 1948 anymore.
Now Israel is a fact and doesn't need any reason to exist apart from it "just being there". France doesn't have any divine reason to exist too, does it? And yet no one dares doubting its existence. Why should Israel be different?

Again, you keep bringing up economics and "democracy". None of those excuse Israel for it's savage mentality and aggression. Like I told you in my previous post, GDP and democracy don't make for a civilized society, rather it's actions, flexibility and viewpoints do. Every Israeli I've come across on these forums has had a bloodthirst to kill and mame and has...

Israelis in these forums get aggressive due to the recurring need of defending the EXISTENCE of their country, something no other citizen of any other country is subjected too.
If you took a deeper look, you'd see that the Israeli society is extremely diverse and flexible; All elections since '92 revolved around the issue of peace, and not much else. Kadima, the current ruling party, was built from the ground up as a force to allow the uniliteral disengagement from the Palestinians and had not much else to offer.

... actively engaged in advocating this mentality to others in the guise of "we're just like you".

Because Israel is consistantly put under the magnifying glass in issues that would be overlooked if concerning another country. Israel is in a tough situtation and usually there is little empathy to a nation of 6 million people, about 4 million of which Jewish, that's trying to DEFEND ITSELF in the Middle East. Sometimes we have to remind the rest of the world it would have acted similarly, if not much worse.

Had Bin Laden targeted an Israeli skyscraper and pulled off his plan instead of committing 9/11, would you support Israel attacking Afghanistan the same way you support the US? We both know you wouldn't.

You're not curious about anyone's opinions or willing to learn or listen, rather you would like to engage in political mudslinging because it's what you're here for.

I don't think it constitutes a mudslinging. In any rate, it's not you that I'm trying to convince or affect. Expressing your opinion probably shows it's solid enough, I certainly won't be the one changing it. But I'm sure there are enough other readers that might appreciate seeing the BOTH sides of the story.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Furthermore, Israels conduct this summer was enough to show the world that it's no better than it's savage neighbors and in fact it shares the same mentality of death and destruction; like I said, Israel is just more well-armed.

Your logic during that whole conflict went something like "omg dead lebanese civilians => brutal, cruel, ..., mean, etc... Israelis". Instead of searching for why the civilians were dying, you just focused on the fact that they did. Looking further into the situation reveals that Israel had no other options for attacking Hezbollah without a full scale ground invasion (which they attempted late into the war, but never completed).

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Furthermore, Israels conduct this summer was enough to show the world that it's no better than it's savage neighbors and in fact it shares the same mentality of death and destruction; like I said, Israel is just more well-armed.

Your logic during that whole conflict went something like "omg dead lebanese civilians => brutal, cruel, ..., mean, etc... Israelis". Instead of searching for why the civilians were dying, you just focused on the fact that they did. Looking further into the situation reveals that Israel had no other options for attacking Hezbollah without a full scale ground invasion (which they attempted late into the war, but never completed).

Sure they did, they had the option of engaging in a prisoner swap and getting their soldiers back. Subsequently they could've put pressure on the Lebanese government to reign in on Hezbollah with the threat of war. The fact that Israel reacted the way it did along with Seymor Hersh's article makes their claim of having no choice but war dubious at best.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Completely false. What Arabs are is a minority mostly unfit to live under the democratic system, and therefore left alone, enjoying some sort of unwritten autonomy. Many rules aren't enforced when it comes to Arabs. Obviously, they don't get the same opportunities either, sometimes, but that's the necessary evil for coexistence.
Yet they all have an Israeli ID and any official right any other citizen enjoys.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Furthermore, Israels conduct this summer was enough to show the world that it's no better than it's savage neighbors and in fact it shares the same mentality of death and destruction; like I said, Israel is just more well-armed.

Your logic during that whole conflict went something like "omg dead lebanese civilians => brutal, cruel, ..., mean, etc... Israelis". Instead of searching for why the civilians were dying, you just focused on the fact that they did. Looking further into the situation reveals that Israel had no other options for attacking Hezbollah without a full scale ground invasion (which they attempted late into the war, but never completed).

Sure they did, they had the option of engaging in a prisoner swap and getting their soldiers back. Subsequently they could've put pressure on the Lebanese government to reign in on Hezbollah with the threat of war. The fact that Israel reacted the way it did along with Seymor Hersh's article makes their claim of having no choice but war dubious at best.

Isn't performing a prisoner swap was what the Israeli goverment did the last time such an event happend, with the three dead soldiers and the civilian that were kidnapped during 2000? It didn't really help in the long run, right?
Israel reacted the way it should since the first bullet to cross the internationally recognized border back in 2000. Ignoring the attacks led the entire world to think Israel will tolerate any kind of aggression, the last war showed this is not the case anymore.

That's exactly my example from earlier; If it was Mexico attacking the US, US would have retaliated in whatever way it pleases and no one in the world would even consider commenting on that.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
In any rate, the number of the religious fanatics in Israel is negligible;

Benjamin Netanyahu is a hardcore fanatic and comes across one on television yet he is a popular elected official in Israel. There are loads more like him in your country.

Most are aetheists, like it or not. And Israel is certainly isn't a dictatorship - in fact, in the last decade the goverment replacement rate was something once every 1.5 years (!), so that leaves with what, thugs? 1/3.

Israel has a very strong political base of religious fanatics that have ventured into terrorist activities (I posted a link about that here before) as well as engaging in illegal settlements. Furthemore, there's been several religious leaders in Israel that have advocated colonizing as their Jewish right and they are far from isolated in that opinion.

What is "recent" history? US waged war in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is 2003 recent enough for you? I'm not criticizing, merely noting history that conventiently slipped your memory.

Again, neither the US or Britain engaged in colonization in any of those wars. The Taliban had to be removed from Afghanistan because they were a direct threat to the US and as for Iraq, I believe it was a mistake so I won't bother justifying it although it still wasn't a colonial endeavor--the US will never declare Iraq US territory.

Nowhere in the declaraion of Israel expanding the Israeli borders is mentioned.

It doesn't need to state it explicitly, it's record of human rights abuses and illegal settlements is proof enough. What other nation in the modern world that you claim is democratic and civilized does the same thing?

But they are. The vast majority of Israelis have nothing to do with religion at all. You want to portray Israel as a manifestation of Jewish rage towards the world but Israelis live in Israel because ITS THEIR COUNTRY, not merely because it's a JEWISH country.

What was the basis for forming Israel in the middle east? A nation for Jews and last time I checked, Judaism was a religion. Israel could've been carved out of Germany but it wasn't, why not? Because Jews wanted their original homeland from 3000 years ago back because of religious and historical compulsion.

If that's what you think, then I can sleep soundly tonight - Israel was successful. You see, I'm not a fan of those "asymmetrical warfare" kind of theories. I think those are complete crap; You should fight your enemy with equal, and desirably much greater force.

Well at least you proved my point of you wanting war just like your neighbors.

Lets make something clear here, shall we. The core of settlers that came to Israel PROBABLY had some religious/ethnical motives. Some Jews came here, others went to other places, many to the US.
I'm in Israel because I was born here, 3rd generation to native Israelis. I'm here just like you are in the US; I don't need any messianic justification for that. If I had the decision back in 1948 on where to go, US or Israel, I'd choose the US in a heartbeat. But this isn't 1948 anymore.
Now Israel is a fact and doesn't need any reason to exist apart from it "just being there". France doesn't have any divine reason to exist too, does it? And yet no one dares doubting its existence. Why should Israel be different?

Israel has overwhleming military superiority over its neighbors. Lets not kid ourselves here, its not facing imminent destruction anytime soon. Rather it uses that excuse to conduct military adventures against Palestinians and its neighbors with overwhelming force.

Israelis in these forums get aggressive due to the recurring need of defending the EXISTENCE of their country, something no other citizen of any other country is subjected too.

Very few people here ever question Israel's existence but rather its actions. I don't see why you feel the need to make up things?

If you took a deeper look, you'd see that the Israeli society is extremely diverse and flexible; All elections since '92 revolved around the issue of peace, and not much else. Kadima, the current ruling party, was built from the ground up as a force to allow the uniliteral disengagement from the Palestinians and had not much else to offer.

Kadima was formed by Sharon, a long-time hawk and in many peoples eyes a war criminal.

Because Israel is consistantly put under the magnifying glass in issues that would be overlooked if concerning another country. Israel is in a tough situtation and usually there is little empathy to a nation of 6 million people, about 4 million of which Jewish, that's trying to DEFEND ITSELF in the Middle East. Sometimes we have to remind the rest of the world it would have acted similarly, if not much worse.

No, those issues wouldn't be overlooked in any other nation that contends its civilized and economicall forward looking. You can't claim to be civilized and then act like barbaric 3rd world nations, you have to pick one or the other.

Had Bin Laden targeted an Israeli skyscraper and pulled off his plan instead of committing 9/11, would you support Israel attacking Afghanistan the same way you support the US? We both know you wouldn't.

I'd have supported a UN coalition taking out the Taliban and Bin Laden anytime and anywhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Completely false. What Arabs are is a minority mostly unfit to live under the democratic system, and therefore left alone, enjoying some sort of unwritten autonomy. Many rules aren't enforced when it comes to Arabs. Obviously, they don't get the same opportunities either, sometimes, but that's the necessary evil for coexistence.
Yet they all have an Israeli ID and any official right any other citizen enjoys.

You will find, in the long run, that if you have necessary evils for coexistence you will become extinct. Such evils are never necessary and are only evil and nothing can stand against the Will of God to defeat evil. Ask Egypt.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Completely false. What Arabs are is a minority mostly unfit to live under the democratic system, and therefore left alone, enjoying some sort of unwritten autonomy. Many rules aren't enforced when it comes to Arabs. Obviously, they don't get the same opportunities either, sometimes, but that's the necessary evil for coexistence.
Yet they all have an Israeli ID and any official right any other citizen enjoys.

Your arrogance of being racially superior to Arabs (does this attitude remind you of someone in history?) and your constant labeling of them being intellecutally deficient makes it glaringly obvious to the rest of us that they must indeed be living as second class citizens in Israel.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I'd be curious to hear what makes Israel less civilized than, lets say, Britain. Or the US itself. I'd also like to hear how Israel consititues an Anti Arab/Muslim state when, despite the ongoing Arab conflict, more than 1.5 Million Muslim Arabs live in Israel as citiziens. That's 20% of the population. Even the US doesn't have a similar percentage of afro-americans.

Arabs are second class citizens in Israel.

Completely false. What Arabs are is a minority mostly unfit to live under the democratic system, and therefore left alone, enjoying some sort of unwritten autonomy. Many rules aren't enforced when it comes to Arabs. Obviously, they don't get the same opportunities either, sometimes, but that's the necessary evil for coexistence.
Yet they all have an Israeli ID and any official right any other citizen enjoys.

Your arrogance of being racially superior to Arabs (does this attitude remind you of someone in history?) and your constant labeling of them being intellecutally deficient makes it glaringly obvious to the rest of us that they must indeed be living as second class citizens in Israel.

Who said anything about RACE? who said the word superiority? You must have better arguments than that. Find better things to play the "race card" on.

They are socially different. Not superior, not inferior, just different. I've never said they are intellectually deficient, although one might wonder where exactly intellect is expressed in the Arab world.

They are not second class citizens. They live under a different system, their own. It's not unique to Israel; It's just like their ghettos in France where they don't even know French and the goverment leaves them alone because that's better for all sides. But then, they also receive less opportunities because a society doesn't like outsiders like that.
If they integrate, well enough.
Same also in Britain, and as a matter of fact, in any other European country with large Arab minority. They so choose.

Again, these people, AS A GROUP, are not fit to live in a Western country. They fail to integrate and are left alone. This is just like a bunch of aetheists Americans wouldn't do so good in Iran. Only I doubt the Iranian regime will grant them the freedom to take care of themselves like Western countries (including Israel) do.

That's the majority; Some of them integrate very well, as I'm sure your ancestors did, but most don't.

Please, you can come with better arguments than that. I put thought into my posts, you could too.