The wars on Iraq, the wars on Lebanon

Forum posts

• 17 July 2006, 22:48

  You know, it appears that it is still not the time for people of all colors and beliefs to realize, or even begin to realize that any words spoken by the Americans regarding freedom and whatnot do not mean that it will happen or become reality.

  The obverse and reverse are the same.

• 18 July 2006, 13:25

  The balance of military and economic power is so overwhelmingly against people living in the area from Haifa to Kabul, (and the superiority of "the west" is so great and likely to become both greater and harsher being beyond the control of its citizens in exactly the same way that it is in the east) that they will have to adopt the most painful solution. They must hand their entire lives properties and territories into an empire controlled by International Forces. Lebanon must become as occupied by these as Palestine has for fifty years, as Iraq, as Afghanistan, as Gaza, as the West Bank. The problem is only how to extend this area into Jordan after it has pervaded Lebanon, and thereafter into Saudi Arabia. It may be that it has already been potentialised in Syria and Iran. Those Governments presently outside IF need to become caretakers of a movement preparing their populations with the skills necessary under IF.

  This strategy makes maximum advantage of the only military premium possessed by those populations, their numerical superiority and geographical extensiveness. However that advantage is so conclusive that it brings victory.

  • 18 July 2006, 13:52

    Do you realize how incredibly ignorant and confused your post is? You mention Haifa - do you realize that it is a city in Israel? You mention Palestine and Gaza as if they are two distinct entities. You talk about Palestine being occupied for fifty years. Was that just a nice round number that appealed to you? How about 58 years since the founding of Israel, or 39 years since the 1967 war when Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza?

    Here’s some advice - study up on what you want to post, understand the material, and then offer an unpretentious opinion. Otherwise, you will just embarrass yourself, as you have done here.

  • 19 July 2006, 15:20

    Yes, I realise where Haifa is.

    Do you believe the Lake District and Britain are two distinct entities? I believe they are different, not distinct. It is a careful categorisation.

    Even if you could decide whether Palestine had been occupied for 39 years or 58 years, or somewhere in between, I think I would prefer to indicate rhetorically that there is no agreed figure; a point you have accurately understood. I believe some may even think of the Ottoman period as an occupation.

    I hope we may be of one mind in seeing that with the collapse of one empire another was introduced. I see that other as of a different character than its predeccessor. Before dismissing it from the Levant it must be accurately described so that it may be accurately targetted. One of the great successes of the new empire is in its presentation, so ably done that it disarms external criticism and confuses internal resistance and divides regional responses.

    My message is that this psycho problem prevents any resolution and effectively maintains the new empire.

    My proposed resolution is that Palestine was invaded by International Forces a long time ago, organised in International cities, financed from there, and armed by them. That the alleged purpose then was the creation of democracy and civilisation was an argument of the times which may be tested by its subsequent history - we do not need to repeat the experiment to know its outcome, except as a means of further theft.

    There are Jews, Christians, and Moslems throughout the world; but in this strategic area only are they represented by International Forces.

    You cannot defeat these International Forces upon their foreign home territories because you cannot get to them, and they are very well defended: you do not have the means. You must have them come to you.

    When they come to you they follow the maxims of military strategy by concentrating their forces in one area. You must disperse them.

    Thank you for your advice. Do you know how much money in total has been granted to Israel by Congress, Is there any published work on this?

  • 19 July 2006, 15:54

    Readers may additionally be interested in this Wiki reference, showing the purge of the intelligentsia. Most of the events we have witnessed are classic strategy, nothing new or ingenious.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killed,_threatened_or_kidnapped_Iraqi_academics

  • 19 July 2006, 17:00

    "Do you know how much money in total has been granted to Israel by Congress, Is there any published work on this?" - 195 30

    A simple Google search will give you the answer to your question. It is a very big number. The United States has been funding Israel with military aid, loans, grants, credits, etc., since 1949.

    "Do you believe the Lake District and Britain are two distinct entities? I believe they are different, not distinct. It is a careful categorisation."

    I have no idea what this means. You may or may not be saying something important. But, unfortunately, your style is obscure and lacks conventions of thought that an average reader with some knowledge of the world can recognize.

    You throw out comments that dangle in isolation from a fuller understanding of history with respect to Palestine. E.g., you cite the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of Palestine, but disregard the fact that Palestine has been virtually occupied since at least the time of the Babylonian captivity by the great nations that have passed into the annals of history.

    It is not necessary to reinvent a "new" mode of expression if you are discussing the occupation of weak nations by great powers. It’s called "colonialism and has been operating since the dawn of history.

    You mention the "collapse" of empires and their supercession by other empires as if this is some great insight. And, while it may be for you, it is merely the course of history for knowledgable people.

    You sound like a young person, for which some leeway should be given for the obvious shortcomings in your posts. I hope so, anyway, since if you are older than 25, there is something wrong that you should address immediately.

    I offer you these constructive comments in a spirit of mentorship, hoping that you will take them to heart and endeavor to hone your written skills in a manner that will do justice to you and to those who take the time to read your comments.

  • 20 July 2006, 15:59

    Shortcomings are at their best unconcealed.

    Israel and Palestine both are new, certainly as sovereignty rather than allegorical concepts, and gain real valid existence through the process of colonial wars you refer to in Iraq and Lebanon -and complain of.

    Necessarily the history is more extensive than the dangling commentary.

    You are right that it is instructive. The Ottomans ran a decentralised Empire inherited by the US when Istanbul moved to Washington. The most perfect military expertise in Washington is the use of Forts to control Reservations containing insignificant unrepresented non citizen tribes whose territory and assets are required by commercial and State interests in the White House.

    These forts used to be wooden stockades and are now small countries, they still hold the territory, they still have no interest in the people, and the US are still the greatest exponents of the strategy.

    It is a form of colonialism. But it is universes away from that form of colonialism known as the Anglo Irish, or Anglo Indian. There are no great traditions of literature culture and governance in the national American life stemming from Arab American families or Native American families. The whole purpose is profit by exclusion. In part this comes from the sheer inequality of the partnership (contrasted with the competitiveness of both the Irish and the Indian economies when encountered by their conquerors), and partly from the nature of the inheritance out of war.

    But there is for your purposes a tremendous similarity. All Empires are budgetting experiences. While the Empire pays it is pursued, and when it costs it is abandoned. The purpose of rebellion is to alter the budget. A good example is the reform of slavery as the conclusion of the Quaker/Wilberforce campaign: this coincided with a massive slave revolt which had cost the lives of 17,000 British Troops, and in the face of which the Commons could not continue.

    If you take as your canvas the area between the Horn of Africa in the south and Kurdistan in the north, and between the Eastern Meditaranean seaboard in the West and the Eastern borders of Afghanistan in the East, for which you undoubtedly have the oil paint resources, and play an Arab land war of mobility and raiding, there will undoubtedly be 17,000 casualties.

    If this seems demanding to you please remember that there is already only one nation at "peace" between the Horn in the south and the Kurd in the north.

    This is an area containing the oldest University in the West, the oldest continuous civilisation in the West, the geographically and numerically most extensive continuous artistic tradition in the West, one of the West’s greatest languages, one of its greatest religions, previously one of its greatest Empires, one of its greatest philosophical and commercial and craft traditions, a majority of the world’s energy reserves, two recognised nuclear powers, I hesitate to continue.

    Bring it to the world’s table. We need it. I have faith that when you get there (at enormous cost to yourselves and to us) you will behave better than your "teachers". If not, we get what we deserve. But I am not afraid of you.

    The Second World War left a devastating series of events behind it. The Soviet Empire, the Nuclear Age, the Cold War, China, the "Mid-East". They have all had to be worked through. They have all experienced change.

    What is your estimate of the financial cost to the US of maintaining Fort Israel since that war? That is what I am interested in. Add to it the two trillion dollar cost of the present engagement, multiply that by a factor representing the largest land war in history. Tell me it is sustainable.

    I will Google. What an interesting idea.

    What are you afraid of? Death is going to be widely distributed to you anyway. In another century, in another place a tiny fraction of your size, these Parliaments watched a million of their own people starve rather than change their trading policies. They will do nothing for you, but much because of you.

    The widely accepted "War is a continuation of politics (diplomacy) by other means" is simply the more modern "Change must come from the barrell of a gun" aged into acceptability.

    Thank you for reading. It is enjoyable to talk with you. I would like courteously to point out that I use the plural "you" as in the older "youse". I wish you safety if it is possible in Mosul. You have tremendous courage.

• 19 July 2006, 00:07

  This wars are in favour of GOP, which would have had troubles to keep their position in Congress and the Senate. Now, with false solidarity claims the President will gather again a group of people to vote for the criminals.
  The polls, the "edited" news and the false accusation of the victims: Palestines and Lebanese people, who are marked as terrorists even though they get killed - 300 by now - Americans don’t really care.

  • 19 July 2006, 03:59

    I am not sure that your assessment that the wars are for the favor for the GOP.

    Be let us assume that is true — by implication you are saying that Americans are fans of the wars; as they (the GOP) are doing the bidding of the American. Thus, they (the GOP) garner popularity and retain control of the leadership (the executive and legislative branches.)

    (Ignoring for the moment the other dimensions of edited news, manipulated polls and elections in order to simplify point of discussion.)