Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.
War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.
M.
It's ridiculous that anyone would ever argue that something as simple as proportionality doesn't get followed. Think of it this way, when asked how many civilians will die in taking a city, the proportionate answer would be 'no more than necessary'. The answer that ignores proportionality will say 'it doesn't matter'. One of these answers is obviously not insane.
Polonius wrote:I agree with most of what Killkrazy said. I'm not sure the PM looking strong is the main reason for the incursion, but it's probably a major factor.
Yeah, it's one factor of many.
I know it's a cliche to point this out, but this conflict is incredibly complicated. There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, and both sides have suffered enough to encourage sympathy and committed enough atrocities to merit outrage.
I think there are good guys, and bad guys. Pro-settlement Israelis, rabbis that give sermons telling the soldiers to wipe out the Palestinians, every Palestinian that fired a rocket into Israel... these are bad guys. Bad there are countless peace protesters on both sides as well. I know you were talking generally but it felt that needed to be pointed out, how diverse and dynamic the politics is on both sides.
1) British Palestine was to be split into Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine in 1948. After the war (in which nearly ever arab country invaded), Israel ended up with all of Israel. They then gained more territory in later wars as well. Much like the Soviets got to keep Eastern Europe in order to keep the peace after WWII, nobody really minded Israel keeping the territory after the war.
2) The Arab nations surrounding the Palestinian territories seem to not be interesting in helping the Palestinians, either by accepting them as refugees, giving them places to resettle, or otherwise brokering peace deals with Israel. This is important, because while there was been relative peace there for 30 years, most of the countries in the region still resent Israel.
Refugees accepted into Jordan after... I think it was the Six Day War... just about bankrupted the country. Even refugees that have successfully settled in neighbouring countries still want to return home, even second and third generations do. It's fairly understandable, home is more than economic stability and when home includes key religious locations...
3) I have enormous sympathy for the Palestinians. They've been screwed by the British, by the UN, by Israel, and by every other middle eastern nation that wants to keep the conflict going. There is an extent to which their anger and violence is, if not justified, at least understandable.
That's put it perfectly.
4) I have zero sympathy or respect for the various governments of the territories. The PLO was notorious for embezzling aid money, and was almost always more concerned with material gains for it's elites than solving any problems. Hamas is far more populist, and has done an amazing job of building grass roots support through it's charitable work before winning the elections. I'm not going to say the people were duped, but it's not like the PLO was a great option, and Hamas at least pretended to care about the plight of the people.
The Americans keep saying it's Iranian money but not even the Israelis pretend that's true. Hamas is majority Saudi funded.
5) Hamas at the lower levels is just like any other politcals/revolutionary group. At it's upper levels, while it's not the Bond villian, it's a pretty sinister group. They're goal is true jihad: the reclaiming of once Islamic lands from Israel. They are supported by Iran materially and many other middle eastern nations tacitly. They are not quite bad guys, but they play a brand of ball that westerners aren't comfortable with. I'm not saying we can't negotiate with Hamas, just that any resolutions need to measured against Hamas' track record.
The thing that's important to remember is that Hamas is democratically elected, their support doesn't come from their extremist objectives, but from their social work and the hatred of Israel for what they've done to Palestine. While Israel can't just cave to Hamas (less Hamas be given too much credit and future support from the population), it's important to realise that is the real underlying problems are solved, Hamas will be left to fight a crusade without much local support.
6) Israel, while not nearly as sympathetic as it was after the Holocaust and the various wars, is like the guy that was always picked on but then grew 6 inches and gained 30 pounds of muscle. It's the most powerful nation in the region, but it's stills surrounded by enemies. It's a siege mentality, and that affects a people. I'm not entirely comfortable vilifying the actions of the Israeli government due to that fact. Its' a pressure cooker.
Except the new tough guy Israel is also friends with the Hell Angels, who keep giving billions in military aid each year. And some of the other kids that Israel beat up a few times before are now on reasonable speaking terms with Israel, not the best of mates but they trade, and they mutually enforce quarantine on that little redheaded dweeb Palestine.
Israel under siege is no longer the reality.
In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.
Step one is to stop the settlements in Gaza. Get serious about policing this. Step two is to withdraw the settlements currently in the West Bank, this will take at least three years. Step three, following a good faith agreement from the Palestinians, is to start economic rebuilding, and make it clear to the Palestinians how much better life is when you're winning.
Step four is where it gets tricky. Because long term prosperity in Palestine means Palestinians working in wealthy Israel, you have to make travel into Israel for work a practical thing, and right now border security makes it near impossible. The border checks are a basic reality, and the most likely solution is probably to hand over the Southern border to Egypt, and other border control to UN backed regional forces (hoping Syria and Iran have the good sense not to offer troops). Then you slowly pull back on the intensity of the border checks as common sense allows. Then it's probably a long, painful road, where it's clear to the Palestinians that any violence will hurt foreign aid, and its clear to the Israelis that military action in Gaza is not acceptable. The plan above was basically proposed by Carter, and variations have been played around with since.
The difference now is that Israel finally understands that the only possible solution is a two state solution, demonstrated by their move out of the West Bank. They haven't done the same in Gaza because they have so many more settlements. This is the key to solving the problem.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: It's not possible to prevent all future attacks, ergo, there cannot ever be a solution.
Well yeah, it's also impossible to stop all bombing undertaken by the IRA against the British. Which is why sensible people talk about solutions built around removing the will to bomb, while ensuring authorities on both sides work to crack down on terrorist networks.
Polonius wrote:I, personally, feel that the two-state solution is unworkable. There is simply too little in the way of available resources for either the West Bank, or Gaza, to be considered sovereign nations. Throw in the lack of abundant potable water, and the Israeli lean on the Jordan River for much of its own supply, and you have a recipe for state sanctioned Apartheid.
The annexation measure has its own issues, but most of them lie on the Israeli side of the border. They need to get over the notion that the lack of a Jewish majority puts all Israeli Jews in mortal danger. The Palestinians are not National Socialists, and there is a vast gulf between being against Israel, and being antisemitic. Moreover, the military would continue to be primarily Jewish for many years after any attempt at annexation; providing at least some form of security blanket.
The single state is a demographic impossibility. The Jews won't accept being a minority in their own country (and fair enough, given history and their recent history with the Palestinians). The other option is to include Palestine but not giving them the vote, and well, apartheid has a pretty bad track record.
The two state solution is the best solution because it is the only solution. It'll require a tremendous increase in will from PA and an even greater level of restraint from the Israeli government.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
The single state is a demographic impossibility. The Jews won't accept being a minority in their own country (and fair enough, given history and their recent history with the Palestinians). The other option is to include Palestine but not giving them the vote, and well, apartheid has a pretty bad track record.
The two state solution is the best solution because it is the only solution. It'll require a tremendous increase in will from PA and an even greater level of restraint from the Israeli government.
In the near future I think you're right. However, as water rights start to become a greater concern for everyone in the region I can't help but think that tensions will be inflamed yet again. Israel depends on the Jordan River for something like 65% of its potable water. That's the main reason the West Bank, as currently demarcated, does not abut the river. That's also the reason that the 'security fence' cuts through Palestinian territory. It isn't an arbitrary measure meant to protect settlers, or divide the Palestinians, but a deliberate effort to defend irrigation canals.
Unless the Israelis come up with the money to lean on desalinization they will not be able to cede water right to the Palestinians. And, if they don't give the Palestinians access to potable water, the prospects for peace in the region are not particularly good. There is a similar issue in Gaza where most of the groundwater wells are located near to, or inside, the Israeli border. Though, in that instance, the issue for the Israelis is not so much one of supply as it is security. Basically they don't want massive collections of Palestinians making the trek to near border wells on a daily basis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/01 19:17:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out? Cut off funding from both sides and let what is essentially a regional conflict remain a regional conflict, iin the way of many African tribal wars. It might be unpopular in the states with the likes of Joe Leiberman and the other Israeli-firsters, but if they really think that Israels interests are more important than those of the people they wer elected to represent, wll emigrate. It ain't that hard.
I'm ok with it if they leave us out of it. But they don't do they? The PLO did invent the airline hijacking after all.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
G
ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?
Oil.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/03 23:58:32
whatwhat wrote:Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Only real Middle Eastern ally? Not counting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Jordan?
Also, while the 'Jewish Lobby' was a significant political force during the Cold War its influence has waned of late. Due both to the passing of Cold War era legislators from Congress, and the growing rift between US strategic policy and Israeli action.
whatwhat wrote:
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
You're kidding, really? Well golly gee.
Seriously though, the primary reason behind US support for Israel began as regional opposition to the Soviet Union. This later morphed into a power check on the oil producing nations after the gas crisis proved they had the clout to pull the rug out from under the burgeoning consumer economy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 00:26:06
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whatwhat wrote:Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Only real Middle Eastern ally? Not counting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Jordan?
Notice the word "real" in my post. Do you really think the us give a crap about jordan or the uae, they're not world players nor important to solving the conflict in the middle east. And if you think saudi is a true ally your kidding yourself.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
You're kidding, really? Well golly gee.
Are you taking the piss out of your own point here?
dogma wrote:Also, while the 'Jewish Lobby' was a significant political force during the Cold War its influence has waned of late. Due both to the passing of Cold War era legislators from Congress, and the growing rift between US strategic policy and Israeli action.
Seriously though, the primary reason behind US support for Israel began as regional opposition to the Soviet Union. This later morphed into a power check on the oil producing nations after the gas crisis proved they had the clout to pull the rug out from under the burgeoning consumer economy.
Two fairly ignorant statements I'm not really going to bother with.
Shouting the word oil worked for the gulf war and possibly the iraq war. The situation in israel is a lot more complicated and different.
How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
-- Fifty-Four -- Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty eight to bill for professional services.
JohnHwangDD wrote:There are 500 dead children directly due to Israeli military actions, so it's kind of hard not to lay that at Israel's feet...
500 dead children is disgusting, I agree. But it's not like the Israelis said, "Hey I feel like killing children today!"
The more disgusting thing is that Hamas will use civilians as human shields. Plus it doesn't help when they fire rockets from hospitals and schools and other civilian areas.
whatwhat wrote:
Notice the word "real" in my post. Do you really think the us give a crap about jordan or the uae, they're not world players nor important to solving the conflict in the middle east. And if you think saudi is a true ally your kidding yourself.
Israel is a world player? They're a regional military power, but their population is statistically insignificant. They also make no significant contribution to the global economy. Their only purpose is to check the power of what is otherwise a demographically contiguous region holding almost total influence over the world's primary source of commercial energy.
As for the Saudis; they have done more in the collective interests of the West than any other major political force in the Middle East; including artificially extending the Iran-Iraq War through neutral shipping in order to prevent the formation of a regional hegemon.
whatwhat wrote:
Are you taking the piss out of your own point here?
Not at all, merely making light of your ability to take a general statement in completely the wrong way. The fact that Israel does not maintain direct control over an oil reserve does not change the fact that it is an important piece in the strategic puzzle which allows the US to control those nations which do contain significant oil reserves.
whatwhat wrote:
Two fairly ignorant statements I'm not really going to bother with.
Of course you're not. You aren't actually interested in discussion, only feeling self-righteous.
whatwhat wrote:
Shouting the word oil worked for the gulf war and possibly the iraq war. The situation in israel is a lot more complicated and different.
Not really. There would be no compelling reason for the US to take a significant interest in the Middle East were it not for the presence of oil. There are other factors which make Israel an ideal axial point in the larger strategic game, but without the economic impetus of petroleum the nation would barely merit a comment.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
If your trying to make the claim that by supporting israel the US somehow gains control of oil in the region your going a long way down the wrong hole. If anything the US' interst in Israel has worsened relations in the middle east. Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
You can go on trying to back up your idea that Israel is about oil if you like but I don't think I'll be alone in thinking your barking up completely the wrong tree. I cant remember anyone on any other occasion in fact where someone has cited oil as the reason for the trouble in Israel, must be lonely down there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 01:35:18
whatwhat wrote:If your trying to make the claim that by supporting israel the US somehow gains control of oil in the region your going a long way down the wrong hole. If anything the US' interst in Israel has worsened relations in the middle east.
Not really. In fact, aggressive involvement in the conflict has done a lot to alleviate the general perception of the West as a greedy, Imperialist power. Remember, Israel predates the discovery of most of the oil reserves in the ME. Hence the notion that what was originally a check against Soviet influence became a check on OPEC.
whatwhat wrote:
Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
It might be a good idea to take an English class, or ten. That sentence is an absolute atrocity.
whatwhat wrote:
You can go on trying to back up your idea that Israel is about oil if you like but I don't think I'll be alone in thinking your barking up completely the wrong tree. I cant remember anyone on any other occasion in fact where someone has cited oil as the reason for the trouble in Israel, must be lonely down there.
I never said oil was the reason for trouble in Israel. I said oil is the reason that the US takes significant notice of the trouble in Israel. If there was no oil the conflict would be a minor brush fire. The US would send military aid in the interests of its Jewish population, but the aid would be far less substantial as the opposition, deprived of most of it economic strength, would be far less significant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 02:01:56
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I shall try my best to make a long story into a short one. First of all the US's initial interest in Israel surrounding it's creation was due to domestic politics in a election year for president harry truman, the real driving force behind the creation of israel and biggest power in the region at the time, was Britain. At this time the damage to western interests which would be created by israel's creation was unforeseen. This, the creation of isreal, expelling of the plaestians and defeat of several arab states at the hands of isreal was what started and has led to the arab threat we know today. And thus the US, Britain and the west in general, recognised israel as a strategic asset and that, is the reason it supported and still supports the state of israel to this day. Whatever oil has to do with it today is of little significance when asked "why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?"
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
It might be a good idea to take an English class, or ten. That sentence is an absolute atrocity.
Well for 1 If you havent noticed already I'm dyslexic and don't really think much of people who try take the upper hand in an argument based on the other persons english. But that scentence does make sense, but to make it more clear for you...'Forgive me if I misunderstood your point as a particular statement, I doubted you were making the alternative claim as I didn;t think you were so ignorant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 02:08:21
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?
whatwhat wrote:I shall try my best to make a long story into a short one. First of all the US's initial interest in Israel surrounding it's creation was due to domestic politics in a election year for president harry truman, the real driving force behind the creation of israel and biggest power in the region at the time, was Britain.
In the early years the primary Israeli patron was France. The British held mandatory control of the area, but it was the French government that first offered overt military aid to the Jewish state.
Truman recognized Israel, but significant US interest in the region began during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Eisenhower administration, fearing an intervention by the Soviets on behalf of Nasser's nascent Communist state, forced a cease fire on the Allied belligerents (France, Britain, Israel). In the aftermath of this dispute the US began to sell advanced weaponry to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan in order to counter Soviet influence (remember, Israel began as a socialist state). This practice continued until just after the Six Day War, at which time it became clear to the Johnson Administration that the Arab nations had taken on a permanent lean towards the Communist cause.
whatwhat wrote:
At this time the damage to western interests which would be created by israel's creation was unforeseen. This, the creation of isreal, expelling of the plaestians and defeat of several arab states at the hands of isreal was what started and has led to the arab threat we know today.
No, what lead to the Arab threat we know today was a strong colonial heritage, and the direct influence of a superpower built on competing with the former, colonizing empires. This was first made blatantly manifest by the Six Day War, but that was not the beginning of the divide.
whatwhat wrote:
And thus the US, Britain and the west in general, recognised israel as a strategic asset and that, is the reason it supported and still supports the state of israel to this day. Whatever oil has to do with it today is of little significance when asked "why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?"
Not really. Once the Soviet Union fell the primary threat in the region was not one of an equivalent, competitive power, but of hegemonic potentates. Towards the end of the Cold War, and in its immediate aftermath, the primary US concern was the assurance that no single power could dominate the Middle East. The most obvious factor in this agenda was the parallel support of both Iran, and Iraq during the course of their 8 year war (remember Iran-Contra?). Less evident is the notion that a third regional contender existed in the form of Egypt. In order to ensure their power remained in check, and the Suez Canal remained open, the US continued it traditional policy of unequivocal support for the Jewish state. The predicate for this entire agenda? Oil.
whatwhat wrote:
Well for 1 If you havent noticed already I'm dyslexic and don't really think much of people who try take the upper hand in an argument based on the other persons english. But that scentence does make sense, but to make it more clear for you...'Forgive me if I misunderstood your point as a particular statement, I doubted you were making the alternative claim as I didn;t think you were so ignorant.
I actually hadn't noticed, I apologize if I offended. I'm just not overly fond of people being unnecessarily dismissive while simultaneously using poor sentence structure. Either way, the sentence didn't make sense, and I guessed correctly that you were trying to be a prick. So I'm not overly concerned with your feelings on the matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/02/04 08:35:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
G
'They're like us so it's alright when they kill the other side.'
What an interesting approach to humanity.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
dogma wrote:I actually hadn't noticed, I apologize if I offended. I'm just not overly fond of people being unnecessarily dismissive while simultaneously using poor sentence structure. Either way, the sentence didn't make sense, and I guessed correctly that you were trying to be a prick. So I'm not overly concerned with your feelings on the matter.
Your blatantly made your argument far too personal than it needed to be. And no while I am not offended, more bemused, as to why you would bring me up on a sentence which could have been put only slightly better. I am by being called a "prick." I'm sorry you couldn't put your point back to me without making yourself look childish.
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 12:04:59
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:Meanwhile Hamas is STILL launching attacks...
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
It was the Austrians who started it! Them and the Germans. Read all about it in Dreadnought by Robert K Massie.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Your blatantly made your argument far too personal than it needed to be. And no while I am not offended, more bemused, as to why you would bring me up on a sentence which could have been put only slightly better. I am by being called a "prick." I'm sorry you couldn't put your point back to me without making yourself look childish.
bye now.
Only slightly better? Really? You used two double negatives, and failed to include punctuation. It was unintelligible gibberish. I realize you're dyslexic, but it isn't like someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond under the pressure of a deadline.
Either way, the entire purpose of the sentence was to accuse me of being ignorant. You could have saved us both a great deal of time by simply stating that.
Frazzled wrote:
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
True, but the vast majority of what we consider to be our modern reserves weren't uncovered until the 60's. That sudden abundance of wealth is what spurred the creation of OPEC, and the use of oil as a means of holding leverage over US hegemony.
Frazzled wrote:
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Maybe not in terms of our supply, but we certainly had a vested interest in making the Soviets pay through the nose.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 21:14:46
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out? Cut off funding from both sides and let what is essentially a regional conflict remain a regional conflict, iin the way of many African tribal wars. It might be unpopular in the states with the likes of Joe Leiberman and the other Israeli-firsters, but if they really think that Israels interests are more important than those of the people they wer elected to represent, wll emigrate. It ain't that hard.
The Israel lobby is very very powerful. The US is not a true democracy, sure it has free elections and a freely elected senate, congress and presidency but Washington is under the thumb of various lobbies. Gun lobby and Israel lobby being the two biggest. Any political who crosses either lobby is not long for office. Much of the media, banking industry and several key economies are run by Jews, and a sizable proportion of them, but by no means all, have connections to the Israel lobby and will squeeze when asked. Lobbies like these are known in Europe and elsewhere but they are largely capped, often by the various nations security agencies. France and Uk cannot be told what to do by Israel lobbies as the high level activist community is much asmaller and less well entrenched. However the US government is all but incapable of acting outside Israels interest on Middle East affairs.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Menaphite Dynasty Necrons - 6000 
Karak Hirn Dwarfs - 2500 
