quote:
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called for a U.N.-backed force to stabilize the Israeli-Lebanon border. Muslims "must show preparedness to contribute forces for peacekeeping operations under the United Nations banner," Abdullah told the conference.
That quote is from this artical. I'm pretty sure the last thing that Israel wants right now is Iranian soldiers camped out on their boarder, under the banner of the United Nations or not.
But I'm not as stupid as you so maybe I'm just missing something.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
From the book of Snoota, chapter 3, verse 16:
I fail to see how the leader of one of the largest Islamic countries in the world calling on all Muslims to do their part to establish peace in the region is a bad thing.
Because this line follows not long after the first.
quote:
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian television.
So would you want troops from a country who sees the only solution as the destruction of your country stationed on your border?
quote:
A sleep deprived Snoota stammered:
I fail to see how the leader of one of the largest Islamic countries in the world calling on all Muslims to do their part to establish peace in the region is a bad thing.But I'm not as stupid as you so maybe I'm just missing something.
Apparenlty you have not been listening to the rehtoric that he has been spewing for the last 12 months or so. The president of Iran wants to see Israel, and all jews for that matter, killed. That kind of presence is not what you would call condusive to peace.
Iran's president wouldn't be who he is if he didn't insert a "wipe out Israel" shot into every other sentence. Dude probably orders toilet paper with a commentary on how he wishes his poop would land on the leaders of the Zionist regime.
From what I understand, this is really a play by Iran to be acknowledged as the major player in the middle east. They could turn Hezbollah off pretty easily...but the United States would have to deal with them directly, meaning we'd have to acknowledge them. Which we don't want to do. Syria looks about ready to play ball, because THEY want to be recognized as the premiere player in the area, but we don't like them either. We like Jordan and Saudi Arabia and to some extent we like Egypt, but their clout in the Middle East these days is laughable.
The thing that worries me about this situation with Israel is that it's forcing a bad choice. Here's the deal: We could, in a straight WW2 style conflict, kick serious ass. But to do that is to not turn back. You've given up on talking out the problems, sort of thing. These little "kick over the government and start stomping roaches" thing is proving to 1. cause a chain reaction we can't contain or control, and 2. something we can't make work in the best of circumstances because we're too busy jumping from conflict to conflict, and now we're overextending, and we don't have enough actual support on the ground.
Worse, Israel seems to be going out of it's way to piss off people who might otherwise be willing to back their play. Britain and most of Europe were tentatively saying Israel had a right to defend itself, but when Israel "accidentally on purpose" started hitting UN observers and denying any sort of cover for humanitarian aid, they suddenly weren't so moderate in letting Israel do it's thing.
Do I think the UN would ever allow Iranians on the border, even (or more to the point, especially) under the auspices of the UN? No. That would be tantamount to picking a side in this. However, Israel is digging itself into a very severe hole here. And the United States, at the moment, isn't exactly in a position to lend them oodles of help, screwed as things are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's three ways out of this, as I see it:
1. All out war. WWIII. Know what's worse than a nuke? Economic warfare. Iran has buddies who might not back it militarily, but in a global market, having China and Russia decide to sit on the fence could hurt financially. Likewise, oil prices would go bananas. They don't have to use a nuke; it's better tactically if they don't, because if they do, then the gloves are off. Either everyone gangbangs them for crossing that line, or we glass Iran, and we get gangbanged financially over it.
2. We start talking to people we don't want to acknowledge. We talk directly to Iran and Syria and basically eat the words we've been speaking for the last few years in regards to our Middle East policy. In the end, we kiss a LOT of ass, and by default concede we can't handle things in the Middle East. Iran and Syria (and North Korea because that little pissant will get Notions) parley this into having it all their way.
3. Everybody backs off...we return to detante. United States tells Israel that the point is made, turns it into the "big stick" threat in the area. We called Israel off. This time. Iran calls of Hezbollah. They continue to be a threat. And the next time this happens, we repeat again, except next time things are shittier. Downside is I don't see Iran just giving up in this without any concessions tossed their way, and I don't see Israel backing down.
I just don't see a happy-fun way out of this, even without something silly-ludicrous like putting Iranians on a border with Israel.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
Apparenlty you have not been listening to the rehtoric that he has been spewing for the last 12 months or so. The president of Iran wants to see Israel, and all jews for that matter, killed. That kind of presence is not what you would call condusive to peace.
Except that you quoted a Malaysian official, whose government has not called for the eradication of Israel. Malaysia borders Thailand, since you're obviously geographically impaired. Malaysia != Iran.
Further, putting troops in the region would require a Security Council resolution, and the US would veto any attempt to put Iranian troops into Lebanon.
So what, exactly, does a quote by the Malaysian PM have to do with Iran wanting to eliminate Israel?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Except that you quoted a Malaysian official, whose government has not called for the eradication of Israel. Malaysia borders Thailand, since you're obviously geographically impaired. Malaysia != Iran.Further, putting troops in the region would require a Security Council resolution, and the US would veto any attempt to put Iranian troops into Lebanon.
So what, exactly, does a quote by the Malaysian PM have to do with Iran wanting to eliminate Israel?
He too wishes to send his poop to the heads of the Zionist regime.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
So quoth Blindy.:
FUCK. Where is derek zoolander when you need him?
At the bottom of a discount movie bin, WHERE HE BELONGS!
quote:
So quoth Mooj:
At the bottom of a discount movie bin, WHERE HE BELONGS!
qft
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Mooj was naked while typing this:
At the bottom of a discount movie bin, WHERE HE BELONGS!
Hopefully thats because the DVD is acting as a stabiliser for a missing wheel/slightly short leg on the discount bin, rather than being in a place whre someone could mistakenly purchase it...
Russian invaded Afghanistan. The United States intervenes.
Facts:
-Communism, the major force behind Russia, does not work.
-In order for Russia to force a totalitarian regime, they usually eradicate all traces of God or religion. With nothing left to fill the void, they turn to something else (Stalin knew this and used it to dramatic results).
-We are having problems with Moslem fanatics.
What if Russia had conquered Afghanistan? Would they have eradicated Islam and then sent the Afghanis to the shitter?
