Arming Up

Kevster

Why are many nations arming-up? [Hugo] Chavez just announced that he is going to make Venezuela safe with weapons; The US is still violating NATO and continues to do so with this new base in Poland; Russia is also now going to arm itself (Using the US' neglect of NATO as an excuse); China has built-up a huge army; North Korea still has not shut-down it's last reactor; Iran no doubt is building nuclear weapons; Britain has renewed Trident... ...


My feelings are that there will be yet another World War over the coming few years. What the world needs is Bush, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Jintao, and Jong-Il to get lost and ****-off to an early grave.

Victor

People are spending more because they perceive that other people are arming up.

In reality, its just keeping the arms and aerospace companies busy, delivering not a whole lot.

mike65

There have been very few periods of demilitarisation and one of them was in the early 30s and we know what happened a few years later!

Mike.

InFront

Kevster wrote:

Iran no doubt is building nuclear weapons;

Not intending to start a debate over it but, no. I get worried when I see people say something like that as something resembling a fact or an acceptable, evidence-based statement.

On topic, I don't see any prospect of a world war whatsoever, provided that the next US President is capable of restraint.

Manic Moran

Keeps us modellers busy. With more countries buying more equipment, we can make more interesting models. Just bought a couple of Chinese AFVs, should be interesting builds.

FWIW, the US Army has to a point disarmed, with a drastic reduction in heavy equipment. For example, there used to be at least six tank battalions based in California. Now only a half of a battalion left, everybody else has converted to something else. Kindof sucks, I'm probably going to have to get out of the tank business.

NTM

FTA69

Chavez just announced that he is going to make Venezuela safe with weapons

Well this would be part of his plan to make US interference in his country less of an easy option. He has also created militias amongst students and workers in order to supplement the army.

DadaKopf

Part of the reason for the scale-up (if it's really happening, the USA is still supreme military power) is surely the exhaustion of the world's finite resources - increasingly, oil and water, which as we all know, don't mix.

FYI

Kevster wrote:

Iran no doubt is building nuclear weapons;

No evidence to suggest this, other than US/UK allegations. And we know their previous form on this issue.

Time Magazine

FYI wrote:

No evidence to suggest this, other than US/UK allegations. And we know their previous form on this issue.

Yep, let's trust the country whose president still thinks Allah will enter Tehran this year and will bring the destruction of the Western world.

There's no risk there, no.

In fact, let's use this trivial issue to punish the US for the invasion of Iraq.

Judt

When have countries not been arming up, again? The cold war obviously saw quite a lot of it, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union we simply saw all their stock sold off to the ten million new militias, armies and terrorists running around the place.

At the moment you're hearing more about it because it fits into a global jigsaw. China is the one to be worried about, but not for the next 50 years - they've put their plans to have a blue water navy capable of projecting power overseas into writing, but I find most people are shy to the thought. Get back to me in 60 years, I suppose.

Countries like Venezuela are talking tough - though Venezuela is more like to start a war with the Netherlands than the USA, as the Dutch own a piece of property down there that is not dissimilar to the Argies - Brits situation over the Falklands. Just because the media types want to get into a frenzy about the whole Anti-US thing, don't think not to look beyond it.

Countries are arming all the time. No worries. The big countries are actually disarming a lot.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Yep, let's trust the country whose president still thinks Allah will enter Tehran this year and will bring the destruction of the Western world.

as opposed to the country whos president thinks jesus will enter washington this year, and will bring the destruction of the entire world?

Sesshoumaru

I think Iran will be the country that starts WW3. President dinner jacket has given us every reason to believe he wants nuclear weapons. Hopefully the US will nuke em before those mad mullahs and dinner jacket get those nukes they so crave!

FYI

Ibid wrote:

Yep, let's trust the country whose president still thinks Allah will enter Tehran this year and will bring the destruction of the Western world.

There's no risk there, no.

In fact, let's use this trivial issue to punish the US for the invasion of Iraq.

Sorry, but the above makes absolutely no sense.

Hogmeister B

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I think Iran will be the country that starts WW3. President dinner jacket has given us every reason to believe he wants nuclear weapons. Hopefully the US will nuke em before those mad mullahs and dinner jacket get those nukes they so crave!

Yes, because Iran has such a record of aggression and warmongering... There's a big difference between being justifiably peeved at the US (who murdered their prime minister, installed a mini-Hitler in his place, and were then so miffed at his overthrow that they incited the worst Middle Eastern war in centuries) and wanting to incinerate the Earth. The US has invaded more countries in the last five years than Iran has in several hundred years of its history.

Kevster

On that note, why did Iran denounce the Holocaust?


Plus, on the note of Chavez, I think that what he is doing is good in a way because he is forming an alliance amongst the South American (and some Central American) nations; an alliance that can rival the US. Generally - worldwide - I get the feeling that many nations are getting peeved with the US being the dominant power and they are finally doing something about it. This can only be beneficial.

Kevster

I think that what is ironic is the fact that the USA is trying to bring peace to the world but is in fact breeding more terrorists. Perhaps they should look after their own country first, before meddling in others. They have serious issues to contend with back home; namely gun licensing.


What I found truly outrageous was when George Bush Jnr said that he wants to bring democracy to the middle-east. These people don't want democracy. They just want to be left alone.


Kevin.

InFront

Ibid wrote:

Yep, let's trust the country whose president still thinks Allah will enter Tehran this year and will bring the destruction of the Western world.

There's no risk there, no.

That's a mixture of inaccuracy and a complete fabrication to be honest. When you grow a similar concern about the Jewish belief of their Messiah entering Jerusalem, I'll take it seriously.

Frederico

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I think Iran will be the country that starts WW3. President dinner jacket has given us every reason to believe he wants nuclear weapons. Hopefully the US will nuke em before those mad mullahs and dinner jacket get those nukes they so crave!

I think Israel will be the country that starts WW3. Hopefully the Iranians can nuke those dirty jews off the face of the earth before they attack.


Soo, back to topic, I think the current bout of militarisation is mainly due to the current crop of various world leaders... Bush Blair Putin Chavez and so on.

Time Magazine

Mordeth wrote:

as opposed to the country whos president thinks jesus will enter washington this year, and will bring the destruction of the entire world?

Yep, because George Bush does not think Jesus will enter Washington this year. George Bush (I presume) has read the Bible, the book he believes in, which fairly clearly states that nobody knows when there will be a return.

And incidentally, just because you don't trust George Bush with nukes doesn't mean you should trust Tehran with them.

FYI wrote:

Sorry, but the above makes absolutely no sense.

I had my sarcasm hat on .

InFront wrote:

That's a mixture of inaccuracy and a complete fabrication to be honest. When you grow a similar concern about the Jewish belief of their Messiah entering Jerusalem, I'll take it seriously.

Who's to say I don't? Incidentally, just because you don't trust Israel with nukes doesn't mean you should trust Tehran with them.

And to me not co-operating with UN resolutions on anything nuclear is serious evidence of being a bold boy.

Now let's not go entirely off-topic about what Tehran is doing with plutonium or kryptonite. The child who won't show what's in his pockets arouses suspicion so let's get back on-topic as to why the world is arming-up; if that is the case on a global scale.

InFront

Ibid wrote:

Yep, because George Bush does not think Jesus will enter Washington this year. George Bush (I presume) has read the Bible, the book he believes in, which fairly clearly states that nobody knows when there will be a return.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that Ahmadinejad specified a time?. He's said the exact same thing as a Jew would say except he named a different messenger.
I don't know whether you genuinely read this somewhere or are just inventing it first hand, but I suggest you read the speech that people who make points similiar to your one reference.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-050918-irna02.htm (Last paragraph)

You're the guy attributing some relevance to a comment like that, which is very strange considering you don't believe it. How exactly such a prophecy is a perceived as dangerous to someone who doesn't believe it is beyond me.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

I think Israel will be the country that starts WW3. Hopefully the Iranians can nuke those dirty jews off the face of the earth before they attack.

Take a month off for that and when you come back if I see any more posts like this one, you will be permanently banned.

Manic Moran

[Deleted]

NTM

Sesshoumaru

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Hopefully the US will nuke em before those mad mullahs and dinner jacket get those nukes they so crave!

While I'm here you can have the same medicine as Frederico.
1 month and none of that kind of tripe when you come back please.

Kevster

I cannot believe Frederico said that; That kind of post certainly is not welcome and should be edited by the moderator.


Israel is yet another story in the 'Arming-up' saga. They are continually arming-up because they have hostile neighbours. The reason why they have hostile neighbours is, of course, the US' fault. They [The US] 'stole' land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews. It would be nice if the Palestinians and the other Arab nations in that region could just accept Israel. However, I feel that their hatred for it is based on the fact that it was the US that gave the land to the Jews. The fact that Israel continually sends missiles into neighbouring lands obviously doesn't help either!


...In 100 years, the US has made a mess of Israel/Palestine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

Hogmeister B

Kevster wrote:

...In 100 years, the US has made a mess of Israel/Palestine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

Indeed. But don't leave out Iran, most of central America, Cambodia, Laos etc., all of whom have suffered irreperable damage and hundreds of thousands of deaths due to the united states' interference.

InFront

Kevster wrote:

Israel is yet another story in the 'Arming-up' saga. They are continually arming-up because they have hostile neighbours.

There is no such thing as a completely hostile country, it's a question of who they are hostile to. A whole lot of people are hostile to Israel who aren't hostile to say, the Swedes or the Chinese or Egyptians, and for good reason.

The reason why they have hostile neighbours is, of course, the US' fault.

The reason why there is hostility to present day Israel is Israel's fault. Israel is no longer some political untouchable who needs to be tiptoed around. It needs to wake up and account for its own actions.

They [The US] 'stole' land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews. It would be nice if the Palestinians and the other Arab nations in that region could just accept Israel.

Many of them effectively do, hence the Arab League Peace Plan.
In terms of arming up, Israel takes the biscuit. It's a region around the size of Leinster with a nine billion dollar military.

Kevster

You misinterpreted my words (then again, I never explained them completely) for I am perfectly aware that the 'hostile neighbours' are not hostile to everyone.

Anyway, whatever the reason for hostility towards Israel, you're right; They need to wake-up and account for their own actions.

Time Magazine

InFront wrote:

Where exactly are you getting the idea that Ahmadinejad specified a time?. He's said the exact same thing as a Jew would say except he named a different messenger.

Christ almighty man, lose the inferiority complex. Whether the President of Iran is a loony and deserves criticism is irrelevant to whether or not the entire Israeli state is loony and deserves criticism.

I don't know whether you genuinely read this somewhere or are just inventing it first hand, but I suggest you read the speech that people who make points similiar to your one reference.

I have read the speech. I was referring to an article I read in the Sunday Times. The closest link I have is here which isn't the exact article but has some of the points made about him.

You're the guy attributing some relevance to a comment like that, which is very strange considering you don't believe it. How exactly such a prophecy is a perceived as dangerous to someone who doesn't believe it is beyond me.

Holocaust denier who wants Israel "wiped off the map" who believes the armageddon is coming while playing with plutonium doesn't make me feel safe. It's his opinions and how these might influence his actions which I consider dangerous. And yes, there are big bright similarities with Bush and Iraq and Israel and Zionism, but please stop using the Shinner tactic of "Well there are other bad things too" as your defence. The guy is a loon who's playing with nuclear material against international disapproval.

Now, for the second time, let's try not derail this thread.

InFront

Ibid wrote:

Whether the President of Iran is a loony and deserves criticism is irrelevant to whether or not the entire Israeli state is loony and deserves criticism.

My point is that this is similiar to a particular Judaeo-Christian belief. Since this thread is about arming up, I'm questioning why you don't see it more relevant to worry about the belief in a Jewish Messiah, a divine right to a state of Israel, coupled with their secret nuclear 'arming up', their lack of regulation and their prophecies.

I have read the speech. I was referring to an article I read in the Sunday Times.

That article is about the speech I linked to, the speech being far, far more innocent than is suggested in the article.

Now, for the second time, let's try not derail this thread.

Then don't bring it up. When you bring up comments as ridiculous as a particular religious prophecy that you don;t believe in being a danger, whilst failing to point out other prophecies that someone else might see as absurd and dangerous, expect it to be pointed out.

MeatProduct

Ibid wrote:

Holocaust denier who wants Israel "wiped off the map" who believes the armageddon is coming while playing with plutonium doesn't make me feel safe.

Hello Ibid, I believe the "wiped off the map" bit was a mistake in translation. A while back there was some talk of this and what he had said was along the lines that a regime change is required both in the US and Israel in order for stability to return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I think the US just picked the worst possible translation that fits into their plan of fear, looks like it worked doesn't it?

Nick

MeatProduct

I also understand that there is some question over the holocost issue too. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Regarding the arming up of the plant I can't see that ever stopping as it would need a great deal of trust and good will.

Nick

Judt

Kevster wrote:

Anyway, whatever the reason for hostility towards Israel, you're right; They need to wake-up and account for their own actions.

Get back to me when you've got a country 15KM wide at its narrowest point, 114KM wide at its widest and with its back to the sea and front to a load of hostile neighbors. Israel isn't the nicest nation on earth by a long stretch, but I always say to people "If you were living in Israel, would you say the same thing?"

wes

Judt wrote:

Get back to me when you've got a country 15KM wide at its narrowest point, 114KM wide at its widest and with its back to the sea and front to a load of hostile neighbors. Israel isn't the nicest nation on earth by a long stretch, but I always say to people "If you were living in Israel, would you say the same thing?"

I wouldn't live in Israel, as I am against driving the original inhabitants of any country out of there homes. The Israeli's don't have such an issue, hence there need for all those weapons. They are continually creating colonies in the West Bank (even during the whole Oslo business), which is against international law and considered a war crime. They bulldoze Palestinian homes all the time and don't allow them to build homes for themselves.

Ask yourself this then, if someone kicked you and your family from your home and the international community decided that was perfectly reasonable thing to do, wouldn't you be arming up just in case that guy tried it again.

2 sides to every story, both sides have reasons to arm up, but lets stop trying to pretend anyone is in anyway reasonable.

Judt

The anti-Israeli types can arm up all they want, I believe what the Israeli's say is "Ohh, you want to try it again?"

Nobody is virtuous out that way, but by the same token Israel is there, it has over 7 million people living in it and at least ultimately their goal is to live a quiet and a peaceful life. Just as the Israeli Army terms it, Peace Through Superior Firepower. I'm sure if it could be done any other way the Israeli's wouldn't mind having their lives interrupted by artillery strikes every couple of months.

wes

Judt wrote:

The anti-Israeli types can arm up all they want, I believe what the Israeli's say is "Ohh, you want to try it again?"

Nobody is virtuous out that way, but by the same token Israel is there, it has over 7 million people living in it and at least ultimately their goal is to live a quiet and a peaceful life. Just as the Israeli Army terms it, Peace Through Superior Firepower. I'm sure if it could be done any other way the Israeli's wouldn't mind having their lives interrupted by artillery strikes every couple of months.

Look up the map of the greater Israel.

What about the Million of Palestinian refugees who the Israeli's deny the right to return to there home that the Israeli's drove them from in the first place? I guess they don't deserve to live quite lives in there ancestral homes.

Israel is actively colonizing the West Bank. This isn't something that people who want peace would do. They want more land, always have and sadly looks like they always live. Just look up what the colonial (settlers as they like to call themselves) movement say. I could come up with more examples, but my books are at home. So Israel arm's up as they want more land, they have shown international law only has meaning when it benefits them. The other side see's the Israeli's as an enemy who would drive there families from there homes, which is a fun historical fact so many choose to ignore, they also choose to ignore that it still happens to this very day to a lesser degree with house of Palestinian being bulldozed. People who want peace don't colonize, hence why they arm and why the other guys arm up.

Israels continued belligerence and violence, gives every regime in the middle east a convenient boogy man to use as an excuse to arm up. The sad thing is they do have a bit of a point.

As for Israel need for arms, well they expansion and protection of there current colonies in the West Bank is one of the reasons (as well as there apartheid state). Also the USA creatively subsidizes its defense industry by providing (my numbers are probably off, but its in the billions) 6 billion a year in military aid to Israel and 4 billion to Egypt (this one to keep Israel in line, if they get idea's above there station), which can only be spent on US weapons. This way the US keeps the boogyman in the ME to keep there little tyrants in line, so we can all have nice cheap oil.

The Chinese are also trying to get in on this racket by making friends in the ME themselves, but they aren't providing billions in military aid to an apartheid state or tyrannical dictator, well not yet in anyways (that I know of).

Judt

Israel doesn't have a problem with the Palestinians, cept for the fact that they'd run them into the sea if they let them all back. Reason why Israel wants so much of the west bank is, funnily enough, about water. A vision of a future for the earth? Perhaps. But the west bank sits on fresh water supplies, and the Israeli Army has had to be sent into Lebanon at times simply to blow up water facilities which were drying up rivers downstream in Israel. If people actually got that this was about things as simple as fresh water supplies, rather than some great racial conflict, well, they might be able to find a solution.

As it is, Israel has as much of a right to exist as its neighbors, if only because they've been there long enough to have squatters rights. The arabs can't accept that, so they try and arm up every now and again. Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

wes

Judt wrote:

Israel doesn't have a problem with the Palestinians, cept for the fact that they'd run them into the sea if they let them all back. Reason why Israel wants so much of the west bank is, funnily enough, about water. A vision of a future for the earth? Perhaps. But the west bank sits on fresh water supplies, and the Israeli Army has had to be sent into Lebanon at times simply to blow up water facilities which were drying up rivers downstream in Israel. If people actually got that this was about things as simple as fresh water supplies, rather than some great racial conflict, well, they might be able to find a solution.

As it is, Israel has as much of a right to exist as its neighbors, if only because they've been there long enough to have squatters rights. The arabs can't accept that, so they try and arm up every now and again. Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

No, Israels problem with Palestinians is that they are not Jewish, hence why they kicked them out of there homes in 1948. Hence why they are colonizing the West Bank. The conflict has to do with the Israeli's believing God gave them the land. Back in 1948 the Palestinians were just trying to defend themselves from an invader who chucked them out of there countries. The difference between what I am saying and you saying, is that the Palestinian Naqba (disaster) happened. No one had issues with them being driven out and its seems a lot of people would rather pretend it never happened. This way its nice and easy to justify Israel having nukes and other WMD's and for no one to say a word.

As I said before Colonialism is a war crime and illegal under international law, as is forcing people from there home based on there race, which Israel has done since it creation. The Israeli's don't recognize Palestine's right to exist and never have. Hence why they need have so many weapons.

You talk of there rights while ignoring the rights of the millions of refugee's to return to there homes under international law. Why should these people not fight to return to there homes? The reason Israel will not allow them to return as it will destroy there artificial majority and lay bare there apartheid state for all to see.

Israel is a violent belligerent apartheid state, they want land, they are actively colonizing the West Bank (they recently started this up again, until there masters in Washington told them to stop), which is against international law. Without all there weapons and the help of the worlds only super power, who hope that by helping Israel, it will bring about the return of Jesus Christ (as per evangelical Christian beliefs, of which there President is one). Of course that isn't the only one, but its a reason that should not be ignored as it makes you wonder who the religious extremist is.

As for the Arabs, they need weapons to keep there tyrannical regimes together. Very often Western nations provide this for them as its a very lucrative business (oh and they sell them to Israel too, as arming both sides to keep a conflict going is where the money really is). Human rights abuses, genocide, and apartheid be damned! Its always comes back to money, money and more money.

Judt

Do you have stock answers ready to go every time the issue of Israel comes up? Long post in a short period of time. I think Churchill had a quote about fanatics and discussions...

Well, if you don't like it then go to Israel and make them change it. Just don't use your mobile phone, that's how they guide the rockets in on everyone who doesn't agree with them. Just look at what a police state Israel is, compared to its neighbors... You'd be much better off going for a drive with your wife in Syria. Just don't let her behind the wheel. Enjoy!

pwd

Frederico wrote:

I think Israel will be the country that starts WW3. Hopefully the Iranians can nuke those dirty jews off the face of the earth before they attack.


Soo, back to topic, I think the current bout of militarisation is mainly due to the current crop of various world leaders... Bush Blair Putin Chavez and so on.

This is obviously an ironic statement and an effective counter-argument. He should not have been banned for it.

oscarBravo

Judt, calling people fanatics - even in a roundabout way - isn't acceptable.

pwd, neither is commenting on moderation in-thread. Please read the charter before posting again.

Zambia

Korea is a country of 1 million men under arms and possibly capable of causing severe damage to an attacker if not winning. And currently activly testing nuclear devices.

Iraq was a country under sanctions and with the bulk of its military blown to cr*p early 1991. And was suspected of making something nasty.

One of these countrys was invaded overthrown and lives under foreign rule? Despite the UN declaring it should not be.

Which one do you think it was.

As long as one country invests in arms we all have to.

Dontico

Kevster wrote:

[Hugo] Chavez just announced that he is going to make Venezuela safe with weapons.

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.
Chavez a dictator? Please. USA has attacked countries before over oil. Whos to say they wont again.

Sand

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.

The reason hes buying small arms and equipping party militias with them is the same reason why previous regimes have had brownshirts. Its insurance in case populism fails him and the electorate deliver a result he cant fix, hell simply go on TV and summon "the people" to save the revolution from the CIA american foreign invaders. Armed paramilitaries on the streets a short while later, political enemies rounded up and shot or imprisoned, possibly some show trials where selected individuals confess they were taking their orders from Dick Cheney all along. Revolution saved, 3rd level arts departments across Ireland send their congratulations

The "US invasion" has been almost certain for years and years now. Any day now though, yes any day. And given the terrible threat, El Presidente regrets that certain steps must be taken to stave of the threat...

Victor

wes wrote:

Israel .... They want more land, always have and sadly looks like they always live.

That dynamic has changed.

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

With the advent of ballistic missiles and WMD, defensive depth is about keeping the missile launchers away from Israel.

Judt wrote:

Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

When was this?

wes

Victor wrote:

That dynamic has changed.

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

I don't understand what your saying here exactly. Could you provide a little more detail please?

DublinWriter

"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly." Harry Lime, The Third Man, 1949.

Hogmeister B

Victor wrote:

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

So what? Aggression is agression, it's a war crime no matter what. Soviet occupation of eastern europe was based on the same logic, would you condone that?

Kevster

Dontico wrote:

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.
Chavez a dictator? Please. USA has attacked countries before over oil. Whos to say they wont again.

I know; Chavez isn't that bad. He is actually currently trying to unite Central and South America which is a good thing considering none of these nations really communicated with each other before. He is doing some bad things in his own country but he is also doing a tremendous good nationally, and internationally.

Victor

wes wrote:

I don't understand what your saying here exactly. Could you provide a little more detail please?

In 1967, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria, in part to stop Syria shelling northern Israel (also about water, an other reasons). Nominally, this made northern Israel safer on a day-to-day basis. To shell northern Israel, Syria would have to reclaim the Golan.

Similarly, taking the southern Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai, it became much harder to attack domestic Israel without the IDF being able to put a stop check in place. Certainly, it became nigh impossible to split Israel in two in an attack.

However, with Iraq getting ballistic missiles and working on nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia and others in the 1980s, the shelling threat dwindled to nothing in comparison

The Israel-Hezbollah war changed some of the rules, with Hezbollah relying on short-medium range rockets (fired individually or in small groups) and anti-tank missiles - a system of asymmetrical warfare that the Israelis weren't prepared for.

Similarly, suicide bombers posed a threat over the last 10 years or so, because they needed to be singled out / controlled / dissuaded is a different manner to massed tanks.

Hogmeister B wrote:

So what? Aggression is agression, it's a war crime no matter what. Soviet occupation of eastern europe was based on the same logic, would you condone that?

I'm not condoning anything. You need to appreciate the difference between understanding something and approving something / calling it acceptable - my baby niece was crying, I felt like hitting her - understandable but not acceptable.

wes

Victor wrote:

In 1967, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria, in part to stop Syria shelling northern Israel (also about water, an other reasons). Nominally, this made northern Israel safer on a day-to-day basis. To shell northern Israel, Syria would have to reclaim the Golan.

Similarly, taking the southern Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai, it became much harder to attack domestic Israel without the IDF being able to put a stop check in place. Certainly, it became nigh impossible to split Israel in two in an attack.

However, with Iraq getting ballistic missiles and working on nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia and others in the 1980s, the shelling threat dwindled to nothing in comparison

The Israel-Hezbollah war changed some of the rules, with Hezbollah relying on short-medium range rockets (fired individually or in small groups) and anti-tank missiles - a system of asymmetrical warfare that the Israelis weren't prepared for.

Similarly, suicide bombers posed a threat over the last 10 years or so, because they needed to be singled out / controlled / dissuaded is a different manner to massed tanks.

Cheers thanks for the info, I am still unfamiliar will all aspects of the conflict and I am reading up on it.

AbusesToilets

I think the real problem nowadays is a paucity of long term planning being conducted by the major western governments.Short term brinkmanship and opportunism are what lead to situations like Iraq and Iran.
In the US this manifests itself in the government somewhat blindly throwing itself behind regimes that oppose it's current bete noir,be it communism or terrorism or whatever.It gets pretty frustrating to see the same mistakes happening again and again.Iran and Venezuela are saliant examples.Back in the day Iran elects a socialist president who wants to nationalise the oil industry.US helps to overthrow the government and supports a oppressive dictatorship.30 years later we have hostages and terrorism.With Venezuela ,you see a similar situation developing.I'm not a great fan of Chavez but i don't believe he is the devil incarnate either.Chavez expresses a desire to nationalise the countries oil industry,something which would have a big impact on the buisness of the major oil companies.Now the US could try to work with the government,either to reduce the losses or move towards a situation of reduced profits,but one still profitable. No,instead you have the US labeling Chavez as dangerous and oppressive.So then things get more bellicose and the situation moves towards the extremes.
Obviously the above is far from the full situation,merely a perception(mine),but the point is valid.Governments,like most people,looking for the quick buck over long term stability