The cradle of civilization where the primary religion was Judaism diverged into both Islamic and Christian is no longer home for anyone jewish? Saddam had links to Al Queda and I figured after a travesty like 9/11 that would be enough support to at least conjure in the fact that we had to do something and not just beef up homeland waiting for the next 'attack.' ::accepted::

Uh... cite. Please.

I don't believe you when you say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, or even that Iraq had ties to Al Qeada.

1. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
2. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1881740.stm

a simple google search shows all the old stories about it. I am not saying Saddam gave Osama the go ahead on 9/11 or was directly linked alright but he certainly condoned that type of individual to live freely in Iraq. I was just saying don't you think that even if 9/11 had not had happened it would at least brought about some support to the war on terrorism. I believe in the war, I believe the Jews have their place among the holy land, and I believe that the spread of radicals among the middle east is much like the domino theory that communism resides on. This is more of me going on my own whim so don't get offended but I believe that every threat we don't take care of in the Middle East will just come back to bite us in the *** since in my eyes it already has. We are no longer fighting the good war, its a ****ty tedious effort where we must 'win the hearts and minds' of these people as opposed to beating them into conscious state where all the oppression they have is viewed as acceptable. I think America is the greater good and the only one with the balls to do it regaurdless...

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Oh god dammit, I sooo misread what he said.

Yeah, your right, and good lord I like missed half of his paragraph or something when I wrote that and forgot to fix it.

Apologies Snoop.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Stuff...[/QUOTE]
It's easy to grasp that the U.S. staying in would have been better because we would be twenty years ahead of the progress we are now. Also, how is it going poorly? The Afghanis are beginning to trust the Americans, they realize that SF are there to help re-establish food and water supplies as well as track down the former warlord forces. You stated that Afghanistan would, in your opinion had been better off under the U.S.S.R. than the Taliban, I agree, but I still believe the U.S. would have made them better off than either of those two.

The British didn't tell us their aim, they weren't looking for help, they were looking for someone to do their dirty work.

I never said I agreed with Ajax, I just enjoy your flip-flopping of saying the U.S. did too much, then go on to say that when the U.S. encouraged it's backed government to take a step back, things got worse. That has been my point all along, as soon as the U.S. starts to allow its presense to fade prematurely, throughout all of history, things go badly. This is why I cannot present the case of the U.S. sucessfully rebulding a nation in that region (I can, however, point to the Axis powers post-WWII) simply because we leave too early. See that? That's my point right there. U.S. stops being involved too early = bad. As I've said, you keep saying that the U.S. needs to stay away, I disagree, the damage is being done by multiple parties, it's not just the U.S. running through there (as just about any conflict in that entire region would prove). I would like us to keep our nose to the grinder in order to prevent further damage, not ditch the effort when we decide we no longer need to commit to it. Obviously you disagree. I've laid out my facts, I've laid out my thoughts on the entire situation. We're going in circles now. I'll keep checking this thread, but until someone actually brings up a new point, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, as neither of us are budging after six pages.

I didn't flip anything. I said that the US forced the Shah to ease control; that's an action, not a desertion. Again, an action, not lack of action, on the part of the US that caused further damage in the region.

But yeah, we have to agree to disagree. Until I see a real sucess for the US in regaurds to a managed presence, which means how the country will be at least a decade after major US involvement, I think we are better doing as little as possible on the agressive front. Although I do see where you are coming from, it just isn't worth the human effort as an experiment. Thanks for the civil debate though, always entertaining.

It's true, look at Japan, S. Korea, West Germany, and so on. They absolutely thrived, and continue to do so to this day because of a prolonged US presence.

(Germany and Japan) These countries were already industrialized, had a strong national identity, and it wasn't just a US effort.

Places like Iraq, Iran, Afganistan are heavily factionalized, not as developed, and just not on the same level as Japan and Germany were. Korea had a long term presence because it was just a buffer from the north, not as a civilization-building effort. It was a regieme keep there, not a change. Also, it was supported by Koreans in the area, unlike Iraq and Iran will be. In other words, in Korea there was heavy infrastructure already there.

S. Korea sure as hell wasn't but they've advanced quite well since the Korean War. Why do you think people were/are willing to invest money in places like S. Korea? It's because the US has had a presence there, militarily and politically.

Germany and Japan were bombed back to preindustiral times and they recovered from that as well. Without outside help, they'd have been living the same as the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat](Germany and Japan) These countries were already industrialized, had a strong national identity, and it wasn't just a US effort. [/QUOTE]

Adding to what Avenger said, East Germany, which was under Soviet control for a great deal of time, still lags behind Western Germany.

Ok, just wanted to say that Vengy's right. Many Americans don't understand exactly what we did to Germany and most of all Japan. Everyone knows about the fire-bombing of Tokyo, but few realize that the list of cities we fire-bombed over there is simply stunning. I highly recommend watching "Fog of War" for the complete list, as well as the American city equivalants (population wise). There's a reason Japan's industry currently caters to the needs of America, we rebuilt it practically from the ground up to be that way after we blew their previous infrastructure to hell.

And yes, Kuat, it's been civil and entertaining.

It has nothing to do with your opinions. You stated them as facts--you forget that whole invisible "In My Opinion" piece of the post is thrown out the window in a debate thread. When you start making FALSE accusations on our president (nevermind the fact that you made accusations on our country like most/all ignorant EU kiddies [I don't mean all citizens of the EU, just those who hate America for no reason] based solely on the actions of one president out of 30-something others [can't be arsed to go back and look the exact number]) I do get offended because, despite how much I hate the guy, he is OUR PRESIDENT. I will defend him if I think he is in the right, or if I at least think he has the benefit of a doubt for being in the right. I will also criticize him if I think he's doing something wrong. Yes, he ****ed up Iraq to a stupid degree. Yes, I think that the prolonged war in Iraq is partly his attempt to become a popular war-hero president (which got him elected into a second term so obviously it worked to some degree). No, I do not agree with Iraq in any way.

But no, I do NOT think that he lied to the American people about what he did/did not know.


They do not belong there. Jews do NOT belong there. The muslims resided there for thousands of years, and the only defense you could bring up to the Jewish presence is the religious ones which are subjective at best. We're talking about the real world, not some book where it rains for 40 days and small men kill giants with slings.

Now, I'm not gonna say they should leave, but the fact that they do NOT belong there, their presence is a biproduct of overly zealous and greedy nations trying to recompense for what happened to them by granting a wish for them, basically. What's done is done, but don't try to defend it as right if it's wrong.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat](Germany and Japan) These countries were already industrialized, had a strong national identity, and it wasn't just a US effort.

Places like Iraq, Iran, Afganistan are heavily factionalized, not as developed, and just not on the same level as Japan and Germany were. Korea had a long term presence because it was just a buffer from the north, not as a civilization-building effort. It was a regieme keep there, not a change. Also, it was supported by Koreans in the area, unlike Iraq and Iran will be. In other words, in Korea there was heavy infrastructure already there.[/QUOTE]
Germany was only industrialized because of the war effort. Before that it was basically crumpled because of the Treaty of Versailles, and was only sustained by Allied-power funding. Then Hitler came in, gave the people a reason to fight and feel pride...and the rest is history.

Japan was still in the feudal ages. To say it was industrialized is a farce--it had only gained a powerful navy because of its imperialistic nature into the surrounding islands and archipelagos--basically if it was a land nation, it would have a great army. But it was a chain of islands, so it had a great navy (for its size).

They were FAR from industrialized and ready for the world. The US opened its borders and forced it into an economic stature--something that in the end benefitted the small island because of its stupid amount of money that had originally been poured into the army now being poured into its economy.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The muslims resided there for thousands of years...[/QUOTE]

(Islam doesn't predate 550 CE)

Yoshi I can really see your point there, but with that kind of attitude how do you view the Kurds who have lived there just as long as their fellow assyrians and arabs but were repeatedly attacked and gassed under the regime of Sadam. The fact that a sunni and a shiite cannot get along really says something about these people's views on religion. They both believe in the same faith yet minute (to us anyways) differences seperate them and ultimately bring upon the more radical factions.

Now jews understandbly different from muslims still have the same 'God' in their in there religion and as well as the Kurds but no interest in living peacefully with them is ever shown by major leaders. I will admit your points about greed involved in giving the jews their own portion of land but the same petty religious differences that you say shouldn't let them live there are the exact same ones that cause these people to strap bombs to themselves for their religious cause. So you can't say religion is a cop-out because it is all these people know and I believe for that reason that Israel is a just country even though if it isn't the most humble of causes.

The predecessors of Islam. Besides, that's still 1500--and you know what I meant. They have outlasted the Judaic presence in the area.

Ireland. While not exactly a Jewish debacle there, Catholics and Protestants tearing at each other shows you it's not the religion--it's just human nature.

show me the last suicide bombing in ireland.... sorry but it just emphasizes the degree these people will go

Er...what? Shiites and Sunnites are to Islam what Catholicism and Protestants are to Christianity. They have their stark differences, but they're still quite able to co-exist.

[quote=Dj Yoshi]The predecessors of Islam.[/quote]

Technically, that's the Christians and the Jews. :p

I know what you mean. However, the Jews were there long before the Palestinians were - they were simply forced out by other nations.

Suicide bombing does not constitute a further degree than simple raiding, pillaging, murdering and other terroristic activities. Plus, the fight in Ireland has been going on longer than the fight in Israel.

That's like, what, four people telling me I'm wrong? I guess it's time I stop selling death sticks, and rethink my life.

Some people have/had said that US support was over stated in the cases of Germany and Japan, and that it was mostly a grassroots effort. I don't have any sources, so I might as well say that three clowns are orbiting Saturn now. But if anyone does....

My point with Korea was that it was a defensive action, not an offensive, action in their country. Thus the people of Korea wouldn't find the US an odious presence because they were sorta welcome to fight the communits, as would be different with Mid East countries, who aren't having an open civil war.

But yeah... I think I've exhausted my usefulness in this thread. Just a recap of my main point, I swear: I think that we should only attack Iran once they obviously have a nuclear weapons program, but play a mean game of chicken before hand, including embargos and the like. I think things will be hard because the earned distrust Iran has to the US and the UN, but if someone somewhere has half a brain, war can be stopped. I don't think we can forceably establish a stable government there, and that another set of inept puppets will be invariably set up again, just like previous operations, who will eventually come back to bite us.

However, I hope I'm wrong and Roach et al. are correct.

Wolfy but still the situation in Iraq is still more tough then others being that it is a Shiite majority state due to the elections while the majority of the muslim religion is actually Sunni which obviously is unpopular because we helped it become that way. I understand your analogy about catholics and protestants and they both have there extremists but we are fighting a war in the heartland of this were everything is an extremely touhy subject and the seperation of church and state would benefit all is just simply not an option leading to the protests of last election and ultimately to more bad publicity for the United States action in Iraq... but point taken.

That is debatable history, unfortunately.

And there were other people in Caanan before the Jews, right?

? Wiki disagrees.

Wiki's also subject to whatever the user who submits the entry thinks. It's reviewed by the wikipedia people to make sure the person is completely serious, but not really so much on facts.

Hi Freelancer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

[quote=Dj Yoshi]Wiki's also subject to whatever the user who submits the entry thinks. It's reviewed by the wikipedia people to make sure the person is completely serious, but not really so much on facts.[/quote]



That warning's rather missing on the Israeli page.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]And there were other people in Caanan before the Jews, right?[/QUOTE]

Is there any evidence that today's Palestinians are in any way related to the original Canaanites?

Iran.

Iran so far away.

sounds good to me...

::rans::*

Aya-toll-e-yay

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi](nevermind the fact that you made accusations on our country like most/all ignorant EU kiddies [I don't mean all citizens of the EU, just those who hate America for no reason] based solely on the actions of one president out of 30-something others [can't be arsed to go back and look the exact number]) I do get offended because, despite how much I hate the guy, he is OUR PRESIDENT.[/QUOTE]

Dude, what the hell. I feel seriously offended. I do not hate America at all, let alone for no reason. That's an ugly accusation. Are you even aware of how awfully biased you are? How are you getting away without being banned, posting stuff like this?

On a sidenote, if we're discussing a country's policy, it makes perfect sense to me to discuss the actions of the current president. I couldn't care less what the previous thirty-something presidents did, it's not relevant at all in this case. So, what are you talking about anyway?

Bah. Finland is a moderately succesful country nowadays, but after WW2 the Soviet Union made sure we could choose either of the two options: To get on our feet without much Western help (whilst still paying huge reparations to the aggressor), or get the "normal" western help (from the USA) and 10000 rampaging soviet tanks in one package. Well, our politicians chose the former choice, which was afterwards called finlandization.

I'm 99.9% sure W. Germany would be pretty much as it is nowadays even without such extensive help from the USA. Japan might be lacking some of its current amazing success, but most likely it would still be highly developed.

Where would the money and raw materials have come from if the US (or the USSR, for that matter, hadn't pouerd billions into the reconstruction of Europe, though? It would have taken decades to recover.

We have had decades. And I just said Finland received practically nothing, but instead was forced to PAY a huge sum to the USSR. And still we are where we are today. W. Germany and Japan were/are much, much stronger nations. If a pesky Finland with a hostile natural environment and few resources could do it, why on earth not those big nations? Granted, Finland is not as rich as those two, and maybe they wouldn't be quite as rich without the Marshall aid, but that doesn't mean they would be poor, underdeveloped countries today.

Yeah, but you would just now be recovered. That doesn't say anything about industrialization/modernization.

And you forget, the bigger the nation, the more inefficient the government. And seeing as how governments are where most of the nation's money is spent...well the reason that it would've taken them longer is quite obvious.

You give most of your money to the government? That's very thoughtful of you, Yoshi, but it's not necessary.

The Israeli page is about the country.

The Palestine article is about the area.

There is a difference.



Is there any evidence that the Jews were there long before?

Not for either, really. Both sides have sand to stand on and the tide is coming in.

I'm curious, because I honestly don't know, was Finland's entire industrial structure destroyed in WWII? I ask because you say that Finland did just fine on its own without foreign aid, I'm just not understanding how Germany or Japan could have rebuilt themselves since they turned the industry into their war machines, and thus had them nearly completely destroyed at the end of the war.

Not by choice. Either way, the government accounts for more monetary transactions every year than any other single source.