Why do Arab countries lose wars?

Cattus,

I don't care about Saddam.  It doesn't matter how evil he was - that still doesn't give you an excuse to be as evil.  "Saddam would have been worse."  Sure!  So now people should accept "bad" because there could have been worse?  What nonsense.

America became OBL's enemy after the fall of the USSR, and those inspired by him started attacking American targets, but that wasn't a global phenomenon until recently, no?  Everybody became hostile to America after Bush.

The Iraqis didn't go attack America.  You went to their country and attacked them.

Alright S&A, accepted. 

Now before we spin off totally, let's just put this simple fact across:

Anti-American sentiments did not rise until Bush Jr. won the elections - at least it wasn't as bad and widespread as it is now.

Again:  the Iraqis didn't attack the US.  The US crossed oceans to attack Iraq.

Anti-American sentiments did not rise until Bush Jr. won the elections - at least it wasn't as bad and widespread as it is now.

Well I wouldn't say it was right at elections, but it was when he decided to goto Iraq and insulted our friends and allies by saying your either with us or against us. He didn't listen to anyone else, and that includes our own intelligence angencies. The guy is a prick and I can't wait til 2008 where their is a glimer of hope...

As far as anti-american sentiments, who cares in the long run if the right thing was done.

The Iraq war wasn't the right thing. As cruel as he was, we had a mission to protect our people first and the masterminds who were responcible for planning the attacks, recruiting people to their idealogies, and training them to perform what they say are still out there. Right now they are only hindered, we need to completely stop them.

As cruel as it sounds, we could have used him as a tool. Atleast we would know that the terrorist couldn't use Iraq as a haven while he was in charge. Bush wanted to go there even before 9/11, he got his chance and jump in immediatly without any real plan. Things may have calmed more now then it used to be, but at times it still get really bad in Iraq. Just means it's going to be a new outpost for the US for years to come like in other countries.

I'm proud of my country, and I proud of the soldiers, but I can't stand the Polticians who agree with this war. I can't to see the future elections...

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by xristar Do Arabs really lose their wars? 1947. 1956. 1967. 1973. 1980-88. 1991. 2003.

I guess the war from 2003 hasn't been lost yet...

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy The Iraq war wasn't the right thing. As cruel as he was, we had a mission to protect our people first and the masterminds who were responcible for planning the attacks, recruiting people to their idealogies, and training them to perform what they say are still out there. Right now they are only hindered, we need to completely stop them.

What do you mean we "had" a mission to protect our people first? We havent been attacked since 9/11. We dont know, it could be that Iraq helped drain THEM and the future Iraq could be significant in the fight against these types.

As cruel as it sounds, we could have used him as a tool. Atleast we would know that the terrorist couldn't use Iraq as a haven while he was in charge.

On the contrary. Infact, he was using terrorist as tools and vise-versa. Saddam's government was secular but he certainly differentiated between his religious sect and others. He was not a good follower of his religion and his moves were personal, not to advance Islam it seemed but I would not put anything passed that cornered rat if it helped him achieve his aims. What is the difference if he supported terrorist anyway? We know he hosted, used or gave shelter to various transnational jihadist or whatever such as Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Ansar al Islam was based out of Iraq! What about his continual support for suicide bombers and the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf?

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons.Link

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by el bahattee Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by xristar Do Arabs really lose their wars? 1947. 1956. 1967. 1973. 1980-88. 1991. 2003. I guess the war from 2003 hasn't been lost yet... Ask the Iraqi army if it was lost.

That's silly: no small country can fight against the USA today. It doesn't matter if it's Iraq or New Zealand. It's not a matter of ethinicity.

Arabs and Iranians never been good soldiers during the long history. My Arab and Iranian brothers don't get upsad to me  but it is true. In ancient times Persia conquered all Anatolia  and reached to dardanelles. They crossed the Straits and entered to Macedonia. On Termophil they were beaten by 10000 greeks. Their armada was burned in Salamis Bay. Later Alexander defeated a huge Persian army and conquered all Persia. His army was only 1o ooo. From that that time Persia was erased from the history until Riza Shah Pehlevi's rule in 1920's. Until Pehlevi Diynastie Persia was ruled by Turks. This means that Iran/Persia is not fighting more then 2000 years. The army of Pehlevi was Marionettes, puppets. The generals and officers fled in one night to EU or USA or Turkey when Ayetullahs took the contol over in Iran. The Ayetullahs killed all officers and NCOs of Pehlevi Army. An army needs skilled officers and NCOs. Iran can have atomic bombs. But there must be courage to finger the bottom. Only religion, belief is not enough, knowledge, skill, training is very important. A soldier learns soldiering in the trenches. One borns to be soldier.

On the other hand  I can write the same story for Araps. At neginning of Islamic Era they were good soldiers. They conquered whole world. They even conquered after hard and fierce fights Turkistan. After Turks accepted Islam. Persians and Araps were erased from the history. The new Lords were the Turks. Turks never took Araps into their army. During the WW! Turks made a mistake taking the Araps into Army. The Arap regiments  in Iraq and Palastine battles fought worse. They coused a breakdown in the Turkish defences.

Soldiereing is not playing in the childrens sand garden. It is a matter of menship.

Tosun SaraI your analysis isnt accurat and biased.

Turk reached power when both arab and persian were weak, they got weak from the same reasons how strong empires got weak which is BAD managment which means Bad rulers with bad generals and bad policy ...etc.

Turks are no different from Persians and Arabs , they had their time on that seat and eventually lost it. again for the same reasons.

---------------------

 

about the topic

 there were many great efforts made by Arabs specially the north africans like the Algerians and the Lybians in their ressistance against the European occupiers.

about the wars,

Each war of the Last century Arab took part of should be taken as an individual event and see the reasons of the loses.

but in general the common reasons of the loses for the wars against Israel were the

1- Western support (financially and militarly) to Israel,

2- Arabs were under European Occupations and some of them JUST got independent and Had to enter these Wars in support for the palestinians Even thought they didnt recover yet from the occupation periods.

so its nothing to do with Arabs really, these times of our history isnt the best, we are alot but weak, we dont have democracy and our leader dont want to make their countries self sufficient so the West wont get upset and start objecting about not following the "deals" such as military equepment , food ...etc.

History proves at the times when Arabs were self sufficent they Formed and Ruled one of the History's Largest Empires from India to Southern France. an Empire which had an Effect so strong that it still there till today. 

that there are 22 countries in the world has Arabic as their Official language and ruling a land that is larger and richer in its natural recources than the 50 States of the United states of Amercia.

all we need is good rulers not Effected nor controled by the West. which i think would be hard since the west are controling most of the world directly and indirectly. even so i think this wont last for longer time and democracy and Self suffency are not that far.

by self suffecient i mean in the neccessary things, i fully support globalizations and free trad but at the same time NOT be dependent fully on anybody.

 

 

so bottom line its matter of timing, the same goes for many countries who Were strong and became weak. a combination of Bad managements.

 

The Arap regiments  in Iraq and Palastine battles fought worse. They coused a breakdown in the Turkish defences.

The logical thing to do would be to place arab troops to the north, as opposed to station them south where they'd fight their own kind.

Check out this article,
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/25781E12-417F-43A7-BD 92-EC91CD62D509.htm

its from aljazeera, so im not sure if it is a credible source, what do you think?


Edited by Super Goat (^_^)

Originally posted by Mira Rumsfeld approved of Abu Ghraib tactics.

The links above dont say as much. Alot of bold titles followed by the words, "reportedly", "accused" and "alleged". Lets take your latest one which ofcourse is refering to Guantanamo.

Schmidt(the investigator) is quoted under oath as saying he concluded that Rumsfeld did not specifically order the interrogation methods used on Kahtani, but that Rumsfeld�s approval of broad policies permitted abuses to take place. MSNBC

So what you have is a bunch of broad policies. No direct orders or anything that suggests that he approved of what happened at Abu Ghraib in any sense of the word. You can criticize the policies, but even if someone was under the same policies at Abu Ghraib, went completely out of line and shoved a stick up a prisoner's ass, it is Rumsfeld that ordered it? No

Back to your main point, you implied that this type of abuse is currently going on all over Iraq. Where?


A side note from your article,al-Kahtani that got harsher interrogation at Guantanamo sang like a bird.

The Pentagon has said Kahtani gave interrogators information on Osama bin Laden�s health and methods of evading capture, and on al-Qaida�s infiltration routes.

One source I read said he was a "treasure trove" of information.

Originally posted by Mira I don't know, cattus. Is it my English, or are you experiencing selective blindness here? I think we've already established that Saddam was a criminal, even when you still had him as an ally.

No Mira, your english is fine. It is your lack of cognitive thinking that I have a problem with. Yes it has been pretty much established that Saddam was/is a criminal. What you have not established is that the U.S. is a criminal and equal to Saddam at that.

Not sure why this is relevant now. Did it bother the U.S. that Saddam was a bad person? Ofcourse it did. Diplomacy and ties can get complicated. You put alot of weight in what Michael Moran says. He makes the point I already have earlier and even says it would be naive to think otherwise. From your source as you say(it actually is yours)..

Yes, the West needed Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, there were times during the Cold War when supporting one villain (Cambodia�s Lon Nol, for instance) would have been better than the alternative (Pol Pot). So yes, there are times when any nation must hold its nose and shake hands with the devil for the long-term good of the planet. MSNBC

Who exactly gave you the authority?

Res. 1441 and the congress of the U.S.

Originally posted by Mira What positive news from returning soldiers are you willing to provide, cattus? You want to tell us about the "troubled soldiers" returning from Iraq? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/national/16stress.html?hp& amp;ex=1103259600&en=76ccd089725f8a3c&ei=5094&partner=homepa ge

I dont understand why you posted that. I said I could post "those" like Omar's (iraqthemodel). Battle fatigue and stress from war and being far from home happens. That nytimes piece you posted does not negate the good being done, infact it paints a humanistic picture of the soldiers in Iraq unlike the monsters that they should be.