How bad is it?

[cali]

How bad is the situation in the mideast? Iraq is gripped by a vicious civil war, the tension between Iraq and the US keeps getting ratcheted up, and Israel has declared war on Lebanon, and by proxy on Syria. So what happens next, what scenarios are likely to be played out? I honestly don't feel like i know enough to speculate, but one thing I can say with confidence is that anyone who doesn't see that bushco has made the world infinitely more dangerous is utterly blind to reality.

[Nimrod2005]

1. And Iran, who has some nukes stuff going on, supports Hizballah

in Lebanon...

[snappyturtle]

2. You're right. It's a mess!....

a tragic, sorry mess! and we're feeding our young to the debacle.

[Minnesota Libra]

3. I believe we are looking at the very beginning of............

.....the build up toward WW III. I truly do believe that and I also believe that's exactly what Idiot Boy and his Handlers had in mind too.

[OhioChick]

5. I agree......

Too much unrest out there...

[JuniperLea]

13. Well, the Dumbass in Chief wanted so badly to be "The War President"

The C student gets his wish.

And the Backwash will cheer.

[cali]

14. I actually don't see this

as leading to world war III, and for that matter I don't believe that idiot boy and handlers want world war III. What I do see, is a further destabilization and fracturing throughout the mideast, and that's plenty bad enough.

[bdamomma]

15. bush and his cabal want perpetual war

to make even more money, why, they can't take it with them.

[cali]

16. Yawn, That's a simplistic

conspiracy theory.

[Minnesota Libra]

18. Simplistic Conspiracy Theory?? Where have.............

....you been for the last six years???

Halliburton has made money hand over fist in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and by the way, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and who knows who else have stock in Halliburton and in a variety of oil companies.

So to say that the belief that Bush and Cheney want perpetual war is a "....simplistic conspiracy theory" is an exercise in a willful rejection of reality. That's about as nice as I can think to put it. That reminds me of something a fundie or neocon might accuse liberals of.

[annabanana]

24. so.... It's a "coincidence"?...right?..... . .n/t

[Double T]

4. bushco has drastically inflamed an already extremely tense situation.....

and YES! it is ALL HIS and HIS ADMINISTRATION'S FAULT!!! The current situation certainly would NOT exist if a Clinton-type president was residing in the WH.

[madokie]

11. Or an Al Gore or a John Kerry or anyone except the WHIG

this criminal enterprize also known as the United States of America's executive branch have the world right where they want it.

[question everything]

6. Add the bombing of the train in India yesterday

it is a war by Islamic jihadists - wanting to reclaim their golden years of the first millennium against the world. Israel is just a pretense, a great ploy for all the bleeding hearts in Europe and on this board to sympathize with them.

I can assure you that if Israel were wiped from the face of the earth tomorrow, their terror attacks will continue.

The oil rich monarchies have been supporting the terrorist groups hoping to divert attention from their own internal problems but, as we've seen with Osama bin-Laden, eventually the chicken do come home to roost.

Israel right now is the only barrier against a wave of Islamic terrorist across the globe, but I do not expect you, or others on DU to understand this.

[MadHound]

8. OK, thank you, I'll just suspend my critical thinking skills

And my study of historical reality to jump on that pro-Israel bandwagon, and ride, ride, ride it ride on into the the blessed Sunset Rapture.:eyes:

It is obvious that you have no historical understanding of the Israel-ME cauldron. It is too long for me go into a full explanation here, so I would suggest that you go do some research on your own.

Your view is simplistic, naive, and devoid of any historical reality. Yes, there is blame to be laid at the feet of Arab countries, but there is also much blame to lay at the feet of Israel and the US. They are far from being innocent players in this sad and deadly drama.

[question everything]

19. I can assure you that my knowledge surpasses yours

the difference is, I do not put my blinders on that "Israel is the aggressor." I am familiar with the pre-1967 war (were you even born by then?) when Israel was the victim. When Israel was offering various peace plans that were rejected by the Arabs, who were hoping for a glorious fights a-la Saladin.

I am familiar with the fate of the West Bank (of Jordan) and of Gaza, when it did not bother any bleeding heart that they were taken over by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, while keeping the residents in refugee camps to fester and to nurture their hatred of Israel (and the West) dreaming about their glorious battle. At least, the Jordanians offered the residents citizenship while the Egyptians did not, leaving the people of Gaza in limbo.

And I was critical of Israel when, after the 1967 war it did not take the initiative, as peace activist Uri Avneri suggested (ever heard of him) to offer the Palestinians their own state. For years Israel rejected may peace initiatives, letting zealots from Brooklyn, dreaming of their won Wild West, to dictate its policy.

But Israel is there to stay. No one is ever questioning the U.S. "right to exist," or Germany, why Israel's?

Israel made mistakes in handling the occupied territories, but it was ready to make peace, to turn them back for a real peace, to dismantle settlements.

Instead the Palestinians and Lebanon let terrorist groups like Hammas and Hezbollah to thrive. It is time to eliminate them.

I suspect that your "historical studies" go back to 1967. You probably think that Israel is the size of Texas. Go back and do your study, get the Israeli perspective, for a change, and then, perhaps, you may be able to post a respectable comment. But I doubt it.

[MadHound]

25. Ooo, nice condensation there, you even wrapped a strawman around it

All just for me? You shouldn't have:eyes:

Hate to disappoint you friend, but your assumptions are all wrong. Not only am I older than you assume(*gasp* I remember Kennedy, both John and Robert) but my historical studies go back a lot further than 1967(that pesky history degree) and include such things as the Zionist movement, from the First Aliyah through the founding of the Israeli state. And in that history, there is much that the Zionists and early Israelis did that would be called acts of terrorism today. No side in this mess is clean, including the Soviet Union and the US, who both wanted to make nice with Israel in order to gain an oil advantage.

And while you stick words in my mouth, nowhere have I said that Israel didn't have a right to exist. While I personally think that it was a foolish move to create the state of Israel, hindsight is twenty-twenty, and at this point we cannot undo this mistake without making matters much much worse.

However I think that any solution through violence is bound to fail. Instead we need to get all parties to sit down and talk. Perhaps carve a Palestinian homeland out of Gaza or the West Bank. Shrink Israel down to pre-'67 size. And above all, withdraw US military support from all sides in this conflict. That is a huge cause of all the death and destruction that has happened over the years. The US has played one side off against the other, provided both sides with arms and ammo, and then acts suprised time and again when the region blows up.

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah go, well hell, they are but the latest incarnation of Palistinian and Arab resistence. The whole region is a very good example of Ghandi's maxim "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" Israel allows Palistinians to vote, and they vote in Hamas, just to spit in Israel's eye. Israel doesn't like that, so they shut down the Gaza strip, and lob in a few shells to provoke a reaction. And around and around they go, sucking in more countries until it all blows up. It has got to stop. Killing more people on either side won't accomplish that, it has been done before and hasn't worked, what makes you think it will now? Wipe out Hamas, and another group will spring up, just like Hamas replaced the PLO which had in turn replaced Black September, etc. etc.

It is time for talk, negotiation, peacekeeping and compromise. Any other course leads to death and destruction.

And friend, despite your braggadocio, I will stack my intelligence, education and knowledge up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays. You don't know who I am, nor what I do. So stop making yourself look foolish by boasting about that which you know nothing of.

[anarch]

27. "No side in this mess is clean..."

So very true. And regardless of who started what in this particular latest round of awfulness, the only winner when things start escalating like this is Death.

I always think of something Iain M. Banks once wrote, about a "dialectic of dissent which - simply stated - dictates that in all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind."

[question everything]

39. I would say 0 on Sunday

So you think that you know so well that you declare that Israel was a "foolish move?" You just show that you have no knowledge, no intelligence and no education - at least on this topic.

Would you say that the US was a "foolish move?" Who are you to decide?

Go to a library and find an Atlas from the turn of the 20th Century and compare it to present day. How many countries were then and how many are there now?

Is Zimbabwe a "foolish move?" Kosovo? Pakistan? Taiwan? What happened to Tibet and Mongolia?

Noooo you are so intelligent and knowledgeable that you determine which country should exist and which should not. All you've shown by this simple statement is your bias and prejudice. Hey, you can get a job at the British Foreign Office. Its anti-Semitic and ant-Zionism and pro-Arab is legendary (the homosexuality that was notorious in public school may have contributed to it). At least, they justified it with establishing the importance of that region for oil, that the Arabs have and Israel does not.

Your complete ignorance is also shown in your interpretation of Hamas and Gaza. Israel did not like it but it did not move into Gaza until that soldier was kidnapped and two killed after they came to Israel proper through a tunnel. Oh, and after continuing shelling of Israel from Free Gaza. This has not been reported in the media that you follow but, as I say, you obviously are very selective in the way you choose to educate yourself, at least on this issue.

The bottom line is, your opinion is irrelevant. Israel is there to stay and to defend itself. But if it makes you feel good about yourself pretending to understand the conflict, go ahead. Better than kicking the dog, I suppose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. "the homosexuality ... may have contributed to it"? What the hell?

You're getting more bizarre each time you post. First you claim Israel is the only thing holding back Islamic terrorism (strange, Islamic terrorists are quite to live in and move around the world without Israel being involved, so we see that they're not 'holding them back', nor could they); then you're incredibily condescending to a DUer who you know nothing about, and now you claim that homosexuality helped make the British Foreign Office anti-semitic. I think that may be the craziest claim I've ever seen on the subject of Israel and Palestine on DU.

[NNN0LHI]

12. I think you may be confused?

It was the CIA who was supporting Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Mujahideen now known as al-Qaeda. Not oil rich monarchies as you suggest. This is all documented very well. Its a little late to attempt to rewrite history now. Don't you think?

Don


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=tus&q=cia%2Bafghan+mujahideen++&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

Results 1 - 10 of about 289,000 for cia+afghan mujahideen . (0.08 seconds)

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Frankenstein the CIA created Frankenstein the CIA created Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest ... Afghan veterans have now joined bin Laden's al-Qaeda group. ...
www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages


Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | The CIA and OsamaIt is high time that the worn-out canard that the CIA funded Osama bin Laden ... Indeed, most Afghan Mujahideen were highly suspicious of the Arab fighters. ...
www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1380146,00.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages


Procrastination: Afghan Mujahideen and ReaganAfghan Mujahideen and Reagan. One learns something new everyday, ... the CIA (and through Pakistan), provided material support for Afghan freedom fighters. ...
www.zackvision.com/weblog/ 2003/11/afghan-mujahideen.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages


Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the TalibanAt any one time during the Afghan fighting season, as many as 11 ISI teams trained and supplied by the CIA accompanied mujahideen across the border to ...
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages


Centre for Research on Globalisation: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas ... In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, ...
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages


Covert Action - Afghanistan"In CIA's Covert Afghan War, Where to Draw the Line Was Key. ... and training of the Afghan mujahideen in their struggle against the Soviets in the 1980s. ...
intellit.muskingum.edu/covertaction_folder/caafgh.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages


US Hidden Agenda - Afghan Drug Trade!As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had ...
www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/ War%20on%20Drugs%20Scam/cia_afghan_drug_trade.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages


The Anglo-American support apparatus behind the Afghani mujahideenIMC was instrumental in the effort to send Stinger missiles to the Afghan mujahideen, and also helped to force CIA Deputy Director John McMahon out of ...
www.larouchepub.com/other/ 1995/2241_mujahideen_control.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages


War in Afghanistan spawned a global narco-terrorist forceThe United States had become involved—at a token level—in bankrolling several Pakistani-supported mujahideen groups in May 1979, when CIA station chief John ...
www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_afghansi_intro.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages


Asia Times Online - The trusted source for news on Central AsiaGhost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, ... Crucial to the plot is how Washington dealt with the Afghan mujahideen, ...
www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FD10Ag02.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

[bobbieinok]

36. US backing of bin Laden + mujahideen and thus of Talliban is the

'story that disappeared.'

Before 9-11 and much worse afterwards, US support was never mentioned in all those 'serious' TV and newspaper discussions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Muslims want to take over the world, eh?

Boy, how times change. Seventy years ago they were saying it was the Jews that wanted to take over the world.

[anarch]

23. just to play devil's advocate here, 1000 years ago there was no doubt

that Muslims wanted to take over the world, and I think that's partly what the poster is talking about. Of course, by that point, Christians had already taken over large sections of the world themselves, and were willing to fight for it...hence the Crusades and all kinds of bad blood that still exists to this day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Um, really?

Because a 1000 years ago the Muslims were the most enlightened people in the world and, while they controlled large swaths of it, they did so mostly through trade and peaceful conversions, fully recognizing the rights of Christians and Jews to worship as they saw fit.

Then they got invaded by the Mongols. Now if anybody wanted to take over the world, it was the Mongols.

:eyes:

[anarch]

32. well there you go then, I guess no Muslim would ever hurt anybody

and certainly various factions of Muslims never had a series of empires that were gained through force of arms, controlling about two thirds of what had been Christian-controlled lands.

Not that the Christians were particularly any better, mind you, and you're right that we have Islamic scholars to thank for preserving math and science through the Middle Ages.

You might want to ask some Hindus about that "trade and peaceful conversions" thing, though.

I'm not trying to bash Islam, here, but I mean, the whole point of having an empire is to take over the world. Yes, the Mongols wanted to do that as well. And various Christians. And so on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. I really don't know what you're going on about.

A thousand years ago the various muslim empires were not particular violent ones. Certainly less so then the crusaders.

The Muslims controlled northern Africa, Arabia, Judea/Palestine/Syria etc., and Persia. Two thireds of which I wouldn't "two thirds of what had been Christian-controlled lands."

The various factions didn't even really come together until they united to kick out the crusaders.

The idea that Muslims ever have or have now what to take over the world is, pretty much, bullshit.

Not to mention bad history.

[anarch]

35. fine, you're right, I give up

I was talking more like 1200-1400 years ago, not 1000. My point was that there is a long history of intense expansionism as a major component of Islam, but I seem to have touched a nerve, so forget it. I agree that most of the Muslim empires were relatively tolerant and benevolent to their subjects.

I still think anyone with aspirations to have an empire is basically trying to take over the world, though...whatever that means. The Bush administration, for instance, is right now trying to take over the world...although they are a far less benevolent force than any Muslim empire, bent on destroying culture and science where Islam can be credited with preserving it. But anyway, to hell with it, I wasn't trying to start a fight.

[BrotherBuzz]

7. Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge!

:shrug:

[liberal N proud]

9. What happens next?

Israel to Lebanon :nuke:
US to Iran :nuke:
US to Iraq :nuke:
North Korea to US :nuke:

[Sapphocrat]

38. I'll play.

Israel to Lebanon :nuke:
Lebanon
Iran to Israel :nuke:
Israel
U.S. to Iran :nuke:
North Korea to U.S. :nuke:

Japan to North Korea
China to Japan :nuke:
Japan
India to China :nuke:
Russia to India :nuke:
U.S. to Russia :nuke:
Russia
China to Taiwan :nuke:
Taiwan
U.S. to China :nuke:
China to U.S. :nuke:
U.S.
France to China :nuke:
China to France :nuke:
France
Pakistan to India :nuke:
U.K. to Pakistan :nuke:
Pakistan

End game: China (Eastasia), U.K. (Eurasia) are sole remaining superpowers. Rest of world = Oceania

[kentuck]

10. Irrational acts, such as preemptive invasions, have unpredictable ...

consequences. However, history teaches us that it is seldom good.

[Poll_Blind]

17. One scenario that particularly concerns me...

...is if Israel does more than muck around on Lebanese side of the Lebanese/Israeli border they're gong to start suffering much more heavy losses. Olmert has said today that he believes that using ground troops to look for the missing soldiers (in Lebanon) is fruitless which will likely mean that the IAF may use US-made F-16's to attack more positions in Lebanon.

  If regular Israeli sorties infiltrate Lebanese airspace, or especially if they infiltrate Syrian airspace it is likely that Syria will try to shoot some of them down. If this is successful against the Israeli jets (but only in quantity) it will put Olmert into an extremely uncomfortable position of not being militarily in control of the extended theater of operations either on the ground or in the air.

  When confronted by such a situation I am deeply concerned as to what Olmert might do, specifically to Syria but also to Iran. I would predict that Egypt and Saudi Arabia would stay the hell out of it, at least initially. However, if there is some severe military action against Syria by Israel radical elements in Yemen, Oman, UAE and Quatar could enter Saudi Arabia and facilitate a coup against the kingdom which would be very bad news, especially for the U.S.

  I am haunted by the concept that tandem or concurrent military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran and Syria would put the Chinese on notice that the "front" for an material and ideological battle will be moved much, much closer to their borders which could step up transportation of military material from Russian and Chinese warehouses to Iran.

  As I've said before, if this continues escalating, this would be the beginning of the "second gestational trimester" of WW III. The third trimester would begin with the indirect but escalated military aid by Chinese and Russian governments to at least Iran.

  If World War III is ever born, it will not live long. I wouldn't imagine more than a few months. But I wouldn't be surprised if one to a half-dozen artificial sunrises scorched to life in the night before it was over.

   (Singing) "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when, but I know we'll meet again, some sunny day..."

PB

[theboss]

31. I simply can imagine Russia and China getting directly involved here

China knows it's about a generation away from truly competing with the US on a global scale both economically and militarily. And it's led by people who (I think at least) think in those terms. To somehow challenge the US today would render all those plans and dreams moot.

And Putin, I think, is more concerned with securing his own country and consolidating his own power. I imagine he has some visions on the former Soviet republics too. I simply can't imagine a scenario where Russia destabilizes itself intetionally by backing Iran of all countries in a tussle with the US. It would simply feed it's own internal problems with Muslims. And that negative outweighs any benefit to damaging the US.

The real danger is Russia or China cutting an exclusivity deal with Venezuala while all this is going on. Then some sort of coup takes place in one of the Gulf States. And THEN we are screwed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Not that bad.

But with much potential to get much, much worse.

[moondust]

22. It sucks.

The world needed a U.S. President to continue where Clinton left off continually pushing for peaceful solutions in the ME, North Korea, etc. Instead it got a war monger who delights in the fact that HIS misguided actions and inaction have brought the world to the brink of WWIII.

[bdamomma]

28. and in bush sick demented mind he thinks what he is doing

is making a peaceful world, get this maniac out of office please, send him to the Hague, he is in the vicinity now.

[theboss]

29. It's not World War III

First of all, a combined US, Israeli, and - say - British attack would topple the governments of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran in a matter of months, if not weeks. They simply don't have the firepower to match us in normal combat and would not have the resources to feed their countries once supplies were cut.

However, that would be a bloodbath and lead to an unbelievably large need for an occupation. One that the US simply is not equipped to handle, one that Britain would never participate in, and one that Israel simply should not be allowed to participate in for obvious reasons.

Also, Syria's regime - in its dying breath - could unleash a hell on earth with its poison gas/unconventional weapon reserves. And who knows what kind of weapons Iran is sitting on. Dying regimes are also the most dangerous kind.

What this is going to end up with is an awful lot of dead Lebanese, the death of a few key leaders of Hezbollah, an expensive and uncomfortable occupation of Lebanon (again) by Israel and - quite possibly and most dangerously - strategic air strikes in Syria and Iran, leading to a lot of gamesmanship.

It's going to be an upleasant few months for sure.

[milkyway]

30. The rapture crowd are having multiple orgasms, so it must be getting bad

for us left-behinders.

Discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1620096&mesg_id=1620096

Here's the death cult board:
http://www.rr-bb.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56

[Bretttido]

34. It's gonna cool down

Just a few days of tension then it'll be back to the same ole screwed-up middle east with everyone staring eachother down... just wait and see.

[SoCalDem]

37. worse than anyone can now imagine.. wildfires are like that

they spread and get out of control before anyone can stop them.. :(

and our "fire department" has gasoline in their hoses:(