How idiotic is this point of view?

[Attalus]

OOHH, a united arab force, I'm really scared, now. Come on, the Israelis beat the crap out of them and they are just one little country. Lets see how big they talk when the M1A1s start rolling and the B-2s and F-117s are bombing them and they cant even see them. Pfui.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Attalus: OOHH, a united arab force, I'm really scared, now. Come on, the Israelis beat the crap out of them and they are just one little country. Lets see how big they talk when the M1A1s start rolling and the B-2s and F-117s are bombing them and they cant even see them. Pfui.

Well, be that as it may, i wouldn't like another world war to happen. And that's what's going to happen if this 'united arab' force comes to be. Even if that war only lasts a couple weeks.

[Leonis]

I think the point being made is that worse than the threat of a united group of nations against the US/UK and any allies is unity and common cause of the extreme and desperate collaboratives of individuals combined with the backing of their respective governments.

Therefore you have the possible scenario of fighting a 'traditional' war and a terrorist 'war' at the same time. What did Hitler teach us about a war on two fronts?
The terrorist front is very large and undefinable too. It is neither an easy nor desirable position the allies are in right now.

[John D Harris]

How many divisions does the Unitied Islamic Force have in the field? As for them uniting the Iran-Iraq war is a good example of their unity. I bet Jordan has more troops on the border with Syria or Iraq then on the border with Israel.
The UN ineffective, they aren't even enforcing the mandates on Iraq from '91. For the last 4 years there's been NO weapons inspectors in Iraq, in violation of the UN mandates. Whats the UN done? They've contemplating their collective navels! They couldn't find their rear ends with both hands, a mirror, and two friends!!
As for our allies, from here it looks like Eastern Europe, the former Soviet block Nations are stacking up better then most of Western Europe. But I guess that's to be expected since a little over 12 years ago we had forced the colapse of the USSR, alowing them to throw off the yoke of oppression, and start on the road of freedom. The memories of brutality (sp?), and how cruel man can be to each other on a day to day basis are still fresh in their minds.
It won't be a two front war, if it turns into a full scale war then all citizens of the enemy combatant countries will be sent home. We're sitting here with two oceans seperating us and a poop-load of satelites(sp?) watching both oceans.
What are they going to do cut off the oil? Hell if they jump into a War and cutting off oil is their big offensive, it will be over in hours, not days or weeks. Troops take and hold land not oil wells. When was the last war won by an oil well? Russia has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and they need and want our money, They'll sell we'll buy.

[Lifetime]

Its a point thats been repeated throughout history. All great leaders and great men have been the point of criticism. How many people here have read Punch cartoons during the World War 2 era? I can remember cartoons on almost every nation and every leader from Punch. At the time they might have been controversial. Now they're counted as historical evidence.

A United Islamic Front? You forget that not all the Muslims in the world live in the Middle East. Indonesia is huge. Most Western countries have a significant Islamic presence. Whats going to happen when they start levelling the guns at the Islamics? I dont think all the Muslims and Immigrants are going to take that very well. I dont want to see the USA become another Israel, living in fear from suicide bombers, unlikely as that may seem. Drastic times call for drastic measures, on both sides of the field. Strike without thought, and sometimes you'll be surprised when the target strikes back. Sure the Allies could level the Middle East in a month. But can they bring peace to a land that has been wartorn for thousands of years? That region is the cradle of modern religion. We have to remember that when we go in there we arent just killing Muslim extremists or terrorist dictators. You'll be blowing up women and children right along with the AK-47 armed nutcases. And what happens if you go in to minimise civilian casualties? You forsake America's greatest advantage, and get bogged down in a ground war where the land itself is hostile to Americans. Does anyone really want a bloodier Vietnam? The very civilians you try to protect will strap bombs to themselves and hurl themselves at our proud tanks and brave soldiers in the name of "freedom". Its not a matter of pounding the Eastern Bloc into comparative atoms. Its about pulling something out of the firestorm. Otherwise that just solves nothing.

[WOLFGIR]

It saddens me to say that you think that bombing a country to smithereens is the way to win a war.

You are not dealing with the second or third generation warfare anylonger. An Islamic united force means terrorist camps, cause they know they can´t beat the allied forces in an open warfare. Even if not all the Islamic countries unite under one flag, you still have seen sofar what some extremists are able to do and work across boarders. When your atomic plants are being targeted in your homecity powersupplies, watersupplies, TV-sataion, Deadly bacterias and diseases. Will you nuke the germs away then? Will your fighter pilots be able to launch missiles to kill the falldown of radiation?

This is an action to be taken far more seriously then rattling your sabers. Leonis gave you a perfect conclusion about A Hitlers misstake.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: It saddens me to say that you think that bombing a country to smithereens is the way to win a war. You are not dealing with the second or third generation warfare anylonger. An Islamic united force means terrorist camps, cause they know they can´t beat the allied forces in an open warfare. Even if not all the Islamic countries unite under one flag, you still have seen sofar what some extremists are able to do and work across boarders. When your atomic plants are being targeted in your homecity powersupplies, watersupplies, TV-sataion, Deadly bacterias and diseases. Will you nuke the germs away then? Will your fighter pilots be able to launch missiles to kill the falldown of radiation? This is an action to be taken far more seriously then rattling your sabers. Leonis gave you a perfect conclusion about A Hitlers misstake.

Hear Hear!
All this talk of obliterating the Middle East to stop 'terrorism' is just an example of the disgusting belligerence giving the US and it's allies a bad name.
A Worldwide United Islamic force of dedicated and mobilized guerilla terrorists would quite possibly be the one military entity that could successfully evade the West's sledge-hammer tactics. Sure Afghanistan got blitzkrieged but-good and fell within weeks, Afghanistan was essentially isolated and the Taliban left without hope of reinforcement. But a United Islamic front would be another matter entirely.
A long-term war of attrition against a united, cohesive guerilla force? Sounds like a certain Southeast Asian Civil War the US was involved in a few decades back (not to mention the USSR's defeat in Afghanistan itself).
It's not that I'm trying to defend these terrorists, I hate what they are doing. And I'm not anti-US either. But banging our chests and throwing missiles around is going to do nothing but create even more anti-western sentiment within these nations, like it or not. And like Wolfgir and Leonis have said, a war on two fronts against conventional forces and guerilla terrorists could prove disastrous for the predominantly sedentary Western nations.

[norompanlasolas]

it always amuses me to see grown men in mature attitudes like saying, im bigger than him, ill beat him up because im stronger, i have a big brother, i have more missiles, more guns, im soo scared, well flatten the place, etc etc... pretty funny.

[Spelca]

There's an election (parliament) soon here in Sweden, and when they were interviewing the leaders of the parties, they wanted them to chose between leaders of countries. One of these groups was; Bush or Castro? Some leaders of parties didn't know which one to chose, and one chose Castro. I know that those not being able to decide which was the Green Party, and the one that chose Castro was, I think, the Left Party. I'm not sure about that, so Swedes please correct me if I'm wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't think it's so strange with some people in the Arabic countries saying Bush is worse than Hussein. For them Bush is what Hussein is for Americans. It's all about from which point of view you look at them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I admit it, I don't know much about Iraq and the wars... I know what I learnt in history in highschool, though that wasn't that much since it wasn't that far away from that time. And I know what I read about it now. So I won't go into who's wrong and who's right.
All I know is that if you want to help the people (This is what the US wants to do, right? Or at least that's how I understood it...) you help them and not bomb them. I don't see how bombing a country would help the people living there. You can't say there won't be any civilian victims. And like some others said in their posts, it would just make them angrier.

About the nuclear bomb... So they're saying he's developing one? I know, that's really bad (strange word to use, heh). I'm against nuclear bombs... But what I don't understand is why are other countries 'allowed' to have them and not them? USA has them. Russia has them. France has them (they tested them, right?). Pakistan and India have them (I think). I bet some other countries have them too. I understand that Iraq is dangerous to the countries around it, but won't attacking them provoke them to make one even more? If they feel threatened of course they'll make one. Because then the people threatening them will think about attacking... Well, that's what I think at least.
Oh, and lots of other countries have the ability to make a nuke. Sweden is one of them. The ability to do it doesn't mean you will. (Though Iraq probably will build one if provoked... I don't know about using it though... I hope nobody is stupid enough to use it, because it would mean death to yourself.)

Edit - I just wanted to say that I'm not defending Iraq. When it comes to the nuclear bomb I see all countries that have it the same because you build bombs to destroy things. You don't have a bomb if you don't have an intention to use it.

[ 09-10-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: it always amuses me to see grown men in mature attitudes like saying, im bigger than him, ill beat him up because im stronger, i have a big brother, i have more missiles, more guns, im soo scared, well flatten the place, etc etc... pretty funny.

Ahh, I thought of Freud when I read that... [img]tongue.gif[/img]