Israel's war with several middle eastern countries

Scott said:
I'd say the most important thing anywhere is, how are the people living there being treated? Israel's got an abysmal record when it comes to its treatment of Arabs, since its very inception. Up until now, it's basically ruled the arab territories it's taken largely by force through brute force, but brute force can only get you so far, especially when you start hitting countries that have more than a few rocket launchers at their disposal. And now this...
www.timesnownews.com

Could Russia Arm Iran? Kremlin Insider Hints At Nuclear Support After US Strikes - Watch

Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian President, criticised recent US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, claiming they failed to achieve their objectives and instead strengthened Iran's resolve and political regime., World News News - Times Now
www.timesnownews.com www.timesnownews.com
Click to expand...

Medvedev is a clown and ignored for the most part.
 
Sailor said:
The 6 day war really showed the Arab's love and respect for Israel huh?
Click to expand...
The 6-day-war was preemptive on Israel's part. The Arab League was going to go to war with Israel and that was obvious. By launching a surprise attack day(s) before the Arabs did, Israel was able to decisively defeat them.

If you look at the outcome, in the long run most of Israel's neighbors started on the path to negotiating a permanent peace. In the end, Jordan, then Egypt did. Lebanon fell into chaos and tribal warfare internally, leaving only Syria as an active rival. Then Syria fell into civil war.

It's pretty clear if the Arab states leave Israel alone, Israel will leave them alone.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They toppled a Leftist-Socialist government seen at the time as likely to align with the Soviet Union to install the Shah that was firmly going to align with the West. It was a geo-political move in view of the cold war and politics of the time.
Click to expand...

Mossadegh was no saint, the Soviets would dearly have loved to control Iran and its oil, only fools like McMoonshi'ite and Nutberg think otherwise.

Here is a far more detailed analysis of that era which you might appreciate, as with so many times in history the truth is far more complicated and nuanced. Claiming that it was perfidious Albion controlling a naive US is truly laughable.

apadanatelegraph.com

Mossadeq: Nationalist Hero or Political Opportunist?

Mohammad Mossadeq’s legacy emerges as one marked by missed opportunities and unrealized promises. His story serves as a reminder of the dangers of political expediency and the dire consequenc…
apadanatelegraph.com apadanatelegraph.com
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
With 20/20 hindsight the North Koreans look brilliant. .....they understood early that the only thing the American Empire understands is strength and brutality.....modern Western people are stunningly regressive.
Click to expand...

Fuck me, you're turning into a total oddball. Why don't you relocate to there, I'm sure they'll welcome youwihm no e
arms!
 
serendipity said:
Mossadegh was no saint, the Soviets would dearly have loved to control Iran and its oil, only fools like McMoonshi'ite and Nutberg think otherwise.

Here is a far more detailed analysis of that era which you might appreciate, as with so many times in history the truth is far more complicated and nuanced. Claiming that it was perfidious Albion controlling a naive US is truly laughable.

apadanatelegraph.com

Mossadeq: Nationalist Hero or Political Opportunist?

Mohammad Mossadeq’s legacy emerges as one marked by missed opportunities and unrealized promises. His story serves as a reminder of the dangers of political expediency and the dire consequenc…
apadanatelegraph.com apadanatelegraph.com
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Muslim nations have been steadfastly opposed to the existence of Israel since it was founded.
I don't see where Israel has much choice.

If you accept the fact that Israel shouldn't be there,
you should also accept the fact that non-indigenous people don't belong in the Americas either.
Click to expand...
Like being an USA citizen living in SCOTUS Christian Nation where if one cross is a swastika then all the crosses are swastikas or all Islam “death to the infidels”……
 
T. A. Gardner said:
More interestingly is how nation after nation in the Middle East is falling into chaos and civil war. Lebanon and Syria are two examples. Palestine can't get their shit together long enough to even stop fighting themselves. Libya is a disaster. Iraq teeters on civil war.

Quite frankly, Israel isn't fighting internally it is fighting all its neighbors who start shit with each other, themselves, and Israel.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Arabs are still living in the 7th Century.

The blame for pushing the United States out of isolationism and building a navy belongs to the Arabs. Specifically, the Barbary Pirates attacking US commercial shipping.

www.britannica.com

Barbary pirate | Definition, Dates, Significance, & Wars | Britannica

Barbary pirate, any of the Muslim pirates operating from the coast of North Africa, most powerful during the 17th century but still active until the 19th century. They gained political significance during the 16th century, when Barbarossa united Algeria and Tunisia as military states under the...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Barbary pirate, any of the Muslim pirates operating from the coast of North Africa, at their most powerful during the 17th century but still active until the 19th century....

... Piratical practices were the cause of several wars between Tripolitania and the United States in the 19th century (see First Barbary War). The British made two attempts to suppress Algerian piracy after 1815, and it was finally ended by the French in 1830.

www.britannica.com

First Barbary War | Summary, History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

First Barbary War (1801–05), conflict between the United States and Tripoli (now in Libya), incited by American refusal to continue payment of tribute to the piratical rulers of the North African Barbary States of Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, and Tripoli.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
First Barbary War, (1801–05), conflict between the United States and Tripoli (now in Libya), incited by American refusal to continue payment of tribute to the piratical rulers of the North African Barbary States of Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, and Tripoli. This practice had been customary among European nations and the nascent United States in exchange for immunity from attack on merchant vessels in the Mediterranean.


A demand from the pasha of Tripoli for greater tribute and his dramatic declaration of war on the United States (May 14, 1801) coincided with a decision by U.S. Pres. Thomas Jefferson’s administration to demonstrate American resolve. Despite his opposition to the expense of maintaining a navy, Jefferson dispatched an American naval squadron to Tripolitan waters. By means of a special “Mediterranean Fund,” the navy—which had been partially dismantled and was perhaps nearing extinction—actually increased in size.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Korea was a UN war started by N. Korea wholly and totally.
Click to expand...

No, before North Korea's invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950, close to 40,000 Koreans had already been killed in a civil war. From britannica.com's page on the Korean war:
**
The creation of an independent South Korea became UN policy in early 1948. Southern communists opposed this, and by autumn partisan warfare had engulfed parts of every Korean province below the 38th parallel. The fighting expanded into a limited border war between the South’s newly formed Republic of Korea Army (ROKA) and the North Korean border constabulary as well as the North’s Korean People’s Army (KPA). The North launched 10 cross-border guerrilla incursions in order to draw ROKA units away from their guerrilla-suppression campaign in the South.

In its larger purpose the partisan uprising failed: the Republic of Korea (ROK) was formed in August 1948, with Syngman Rhee as president. Nevertheless, almost 8,000 members of the South Korean security forces and at least 30,000 other Koreans lost their lives. Many of the victims were not security forces or armed guerrillas at all but simply people identified as “rightists” or “reds” by the belligerents. Small-scale atrocities became a way of life.
**
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Since then, other wars the US had a vested interest in were:

Dominican Republic invasion to stop communist takeover
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that the U.S. wasn't nearly so sanguine when it came to the Soviets' invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 due to concerns that the Czechs were becoming too western. It's fine if the U.S. invades a country, but not if the Soviets invade a country, essentially. This mindset clearly continues until this day.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
As for post WW 2...

US involvement in the Chinese civil war post WW 2 where Mao took the country was mostly a withdrawal.
Korea was a UN war started by N. Korea wholly and totally.

Since then, other wars the US had a vested interest in were:

Dominican Republic invasion to stop communist takeover
Granada invasion to stop communist takeover
Panama invasion to stop drug flow to prop up dictator

And a few various meddling's by the CIA and such.

None of that was "corporate interests."
Click to expand...

You may find the following article educational:
businessjournalism.org

How U.S. businesses profit from war worldwide | The Reynolds Center

Billions go towards supporting a massive global arms industry that reaps the benefits of conflicts around the world.
businessjournalism.org businessjournalism.org
 
Scott said:
I think we can agree that the U.S. wasn't nearly so sanguine when it came to the Soviets' invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 due to concerns that the Czechs were becoming too western. It's fine if the U.S. invades a country, but not if the Soviets invade a country, essentially. This mindset clearly continues until this day.
Click to expand...
deranged neocon chuckle fuck deep state warmonger idiots.

morality really is so important.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am a bit surprised that you are still here.
Click to expand...
Lol :-). I took a bit of a break in posting in forums, but justplainpolitics is still my go to forum when I do post. As to what I've been doing instead, mainly watching TV series. I watched the second season of The Sandman that just came out (on Netflix) and I started watching Murderbot (streaming on Apple TV). Season Finale of Murderbot is this Friday, but that's also when the 3rd season of Foundation (also on Apple TV) begins :-). I also started watching the second season of Dan da Dan on Netflix. Kinda silly sometimes, but it's also brought me to tears sometimes too.
 
Sammy Jankis said:
Scott said:
I think we can agree that the U.S. wasn't nearly so sanguine when it came to the Soviets' invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 due to concerns that the Czechs were becoming too western. It's fine if the U.S. invades a country, but not if the Soviets invade a country, essentially. This mindset clearly continues until this day.
Click to expand...
deranged neocon chuckle fuck deep state warmonger idiots.

morality really is so important.
Click to expand...

I think you're essentially agreeing with me that U.S. foreign policy is pretty hypocritical when it comes to invasions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top