- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world, one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, and is in a very defensible position
while having a close ally that is the strongest military in the world.
I think taking your hypothetical seriously is the equivilent of taking the hypothetical of what the ramifications would be if the Park View Patriots of the AA Division for Virginia High School Football blows out the New England Patriots by 40 points while shattering Tom Brady's femur.
Which is why an invasion by Egypt is never going to happen.
Indefinitely? Elections scheduled for Sept. 2011 in Egypt
I asked what if you are wrong. Who fills the vacuum of leadership in Egypt?
Right, just like we have dealt with Iran. Are the people better off in Iran than they were prior to radical Islam taking over? It is a lot easier protesting for your freedom than it is actually getting your freedom. Think that Iranians are free?
very revolution in the region started out with the demand for freedom and democracy and look who stepped in. I suggest better research on racial Islam and their goal
I care about the security of this country and stopping radical Islam. What exactly do you care about?
You think the elections in Iraq were legitimate?
Explain to us, from a tactical and strategic standpoint, how Israel is in a, "defensible position". IMO, they're couldn't be in a worse position, for defense.
If that allie chooses to deploy forces to support them. I don't see that as being realistic, with our current government.
That statement proves that you lack the historical knowledge to understand just how realistic my hypothetical is.
Yes, indefinitely, since the Egyptian elections are as legitimate as the ones in Venezuela recently.
Or do you think that Chavez is a legitimately elected Leader?
What do you mean if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong that the people over throw the government? Then Mubarak keeps tenuous grasp of the country.
I don't think the Iranian are massively better off then before, I don't think they're amazingly worse off than before either. I also think generally though giving aid to people attempting to fight for democracy and are on the verge of it is better than just initiating and causing it yourself. We could've been France to Iran's Green Revolution, instead Obama sat on his ass.
Not to mention we didn't install a real democracy in Iran when you're talking about, we just traded one essential dictator for another.
Please, point me out specific revolutions that demanded Democracy. Since you're far more versed in your research, I'm sure you can point me at specifics.
Gotcha. So you weren't going on and on years back about "spreading democracy" and "spreading freedom" with regards to Iraq then? As long as your consistant.
I care about the security of this country as well. I think the long term security of it is far more beneificial by democratic governments in the Middle East taking hold rather than dictatorships. If that means a period of instability or some questionable regimes we don't get along with, so be it. The end result is likely far better than the bandaid approach of the narrow immediete gratification view we take currently.
I don't give a **** about "stopping radical islam". I care about stopping radical islam from harming our country. I'm not here for a Holy War.
Recently? Far more than most elections in that region of the world. Previously? Absolutely not.....but then you prove my point at the very start of this post.
It happened twice before. It can happen again.
The representatives selected by the people of Egypt.
Why do you find democracy so threatening?
On the flipside for you then Catz....were you one of those that was decrying the horrors and wrongness of the Iraqi War and how irresponsible it was for us to be trying to "spread democracy" and "bring freedom" to people?
Its amazing how many people on both sides seem to be flip flopping. "OMG, we can't 'spread democracy', we should be worrying about ourselves not what others are doing" suddenly becomes "We can't support a dictator just because it helps ourselves, we should be helping people fight for democracy because that's what matters!". Meanwhile the other side is going "We must spread democracy, such governance protects us and its a basic human right to be free!" and now flipping "We need to keep supporting the dictator that helps us because their freedom may allow them to put into power people we don't like!"
I hate people sometimes.
I think the US has supported the export of democratic principles since its founding. I think we ought to continue to do so. Our level of friendship with Egypt should be based on their actions to reform so that their people have an effective voice.
Let's look at this, though, Zyphlin.
Some people have said "You can't spread democracy because it must come from the people themselves. It can't be something that gets 'installed' by force. Installing a democracy is a contradiction in terms".
That's a position which is consistent with wanting to see Egypt become a deomcarcy due to what is currently happening. One can desire a spead of democracy while simultaneously acknowledging that it must spread from within, not be installed from without.
So comparing the two stances isn't entirely accurate.
Israel's defenses and military are well entrenched in a relatively smal amount of land with a number of decades of history in defending said location and a track record of successfully doing so time and time again.
I think you're acting an utter fool here if you think your hypothetical could happen, IE the slaughter of "hundreds of thousands" of Israeli's which would likely mean that a large number of civilians are getting killed let alone the tactical problems you're suggesting, while our government did literally nothing to come to their aid. You're letting your hyper partisan tendancies blind you from looking at a situation honestly and legitimately, but then again I'm being redundant as that is the standard for how hyper partisans view most political issues.
Really. Perhaps you can point me to all the historical situations where countries have killed hundreds of thousands of Israeli's, took over their entire country, and held the world hostage. I'm apparently missing that "historical knowledge".
No, sorry, history is in my favor on this one.
I have no problem with democracy at all. What are you afraid of, elections are scheduled in Egypt in September so why overthrow the govt. now?
A problem with this thinking is that currently there are defined representatives of the people. Egypt is a nation of 80 million. The demonstrations have been held by perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. Sort of like the tea party if they went into the streets and asked for a change in government would Obama resign?
No doubt change has been long overdue in Egypt, but it would be better for an orderly transition so that the the most violent people get to take over like they did in Iran.
You may notice that the governments in the most trouble ( egypt and Jordan) are aligned with the U.S. while probably the worst actor against its people, Syria has no such problems.
Because those haven't historically been real elections, and the people of Egypt have a right to have their own chosen representatives. Democracy doesn't have to happen on a schedule.
Let's look at this, though, Zyphlin.
Some people have said "You can't spread democracy because it must come from the people themselves. It can't be something that gets 'installed' by force. Installing a democracy is a contradiction in terms".
That's a position which is consistent with wanting to see Egypt become a deomcarcy due to what is currently happening. One can desire a spead of democracy while simultaneously acknowledging that it must spread from within, not be installed from without.
So comparing the two stances isn't entirely accurate.
You be sure and let us know when the Muslim Brotherhood holds, "real", elections.
That one is. On the flip side, others said they wanted to install a democracy not because people deserved freedom but because it best helped our security interests. That ALSO is consistant across both sides here.
However, there were some that were adamant about us simply staying out of other peoples business, that its not the U.S.'s job to push for Democracy or freedom, and we need to keep our noses out of middle eastern affairs.
There were also those that argued that giving them democracy and freedom, regardless of its positive effect on the U.S.'s security, was a legitimate reason to act in Iraq.
Those type of arguments are more the ones I'm speaking to. There CAN be legitimately consistant arguments for supporting establishing democracy in Iraq but not here, and vise versa. But not everyone necessarily used those arguments.
In a straight up/one-on-one battle with Egypt's current military, I agree.Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world, one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, and is in a very defensible position all while having a close ally that is the strongest military in the world. I think taking your hypothetical seriously is the equivilent of taking the hypothetical of what the ramifications would be if the Park View Patriots of the AA Division for Virginia High School Football blows out the New England Patriots by 40 points while shattering Tom Brady's femur.
Because those haven't historically been real elections, and the people of Egypt have a right to have their own chosen representatives. Democracy doesn't have to happen on a schedule.
Are we now pretending that you have ESP and can predict the future reliably? I'd suggest that your posts on this board say otherwise.
While Egypt won't become part of the 'Shia crescent', this could 'close the circle'on Israel. With Iran to the West???, Syria and Iran-backed Hezbollah to the North, and now a possibly Egypt and Egypt-supported Hamas to the West???.
Even without Egypt Israel was/is vulnerble to a large and sumultaneous [even] non-nuclear missile attack. Raining thousand of high-explosive or other damaging payloads on it with Minutes. Staring with only a few minutes warning in the case of Syria, and over with 20-30 with missles from Iran. Add in a motivated Egypt and Arabs could destroy most of tiny Israel that counts quickly.
Coventional warafre you speak of would only be a remnant in this case.
I see the above scenario possible and within 2-3 years. There really is no defense except 'MAD'.
I fear your grasp of geo-political possibilities is as shaky as your geography. I don't believe that Israel's neighbours are going to gang-up and rain missiles on it, nor do I believe Israel will resort to unilateral nuclear force. What you call MAD cannot be M because no one else in the region has 'em.
Didn't we have a real election in other countries of the region under Islamic control? How far are you willing to go to promote democracy? Does that include supporting the people of Iran who protested the fraudulent elections? What step will you support if the Egypt elections after the overthrow of the govt. are proven to be fraudulent like Iran's?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?