Why do Arab countries lose wars?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10914
Printed Date: 17-May-2024 at 23:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why do Arab countries lose wars?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Why do Arab countries lose wars?
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 07:57
|
And looking at the Iran-Iraq war you could ask this question of the Iranians as well. Shooting your best generals. colonels and sargents is a disaterous way to fight a war.
Part 1 http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html - http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articl es/deatkine_arabs1.html Part 2 http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs2.html - http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articl es/deatkine_arabs2.html |
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 08:12
|
After two years we pushed the Iraqis onto their own soil. When the Iraqis attacked 40% of the military had deserted and its most apt officers had been purged Stalin style for their perceived loyalty to the former Shah. During the Shah's era it was a different story, in the 70s, according to an Israeli military attache the Iranian army was as good as any conventional force in NATO. You cannot lump the Iranian military into this category, your link also has this to say:
The Iraqis were halted at first by irregular paramilitaries, one example is Iranian civilians opening the Karun dam and wiping out half an Iraqi division. ------------- |
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 09:48
|
iran had no army, no support, no allies, the mullahs were executing many soldiers who were still loyal to the shah, etc... and we still managed to beat the iraqi's back. ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 10:18
This really isn't a post classical middle east topic since the links mostly talk about 20'th century wars. I'll move it to Modern history instead. I'm sure Pikeshot, Decebal and Genghis would love me for this. They do tend to interact well when the discussion is about wars. ------------- |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 13:03
|
this war with no doubt was inconclusive the real loser were the people of Iraq and Iran,Saddam the shamefull waged it and Khomaini refused to stop it and accept the truce. but you can't say the Iranian military was better than Iraqi's cause if this true the Iranian would end the war in short period due to their superior forces in number and quality as well as human waves I won't enter in more details like campagins and operations cause I hate this war as well as the second gulf war and Kuwait invasion. about your question Sparten I think the lose because it is not our greatest time like any nation have been through in same situation. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 14:41
|
Simply because both Iran and Iraq had goverments which they did not like that much(Saddam-Mullahs)....... ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 18:48
|
Because there's a planetary status quo that is centered in the USA and its rich and privileged allies. These want to keep Arabia divided and weak and have the power to do so - at least so far. They control the strings of money and can summon armies with the best equipement, training, logistics and intelligence. They have maybe thousands of people just processing the economic and gepolitical data with the objective of making sure that they always win. That the colonies remain colonies. Due to the assimilation of British interests into the USA, something that has happened specially in the first half of the 20th century, first in America and then elsewhere, the USA now considers Arabia and all the Middle East as it used to consider Latin America not long ago: a place to play cruent games of power. The USSR helped to contain their influence a little but now there's no counter-power: the duality is over. Arabs are therefore on their own forces - which are obviously limited. Everything that goes up must eventually fall down again... but what meanwhile? ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 18:53
| So, what is the reason Arabs lose wars? |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 08:27
|
Are we asking why the Iraqis and Iranians performed how they did in
their war, or discussing 20th century military setbacks of Arabs as a
whole?
------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 11:52
|
Do Arabs really lose their wars? |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 11:57
|
Do Arabs fight wars to begin with?
------------- |
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 19:43
|
are you being serious? ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 19:55
|
1947. 1956. 1967. 1973. 1980-88. 1991. 2003. Name an Arab state or army that has won a war in the last 60 years, except for King Hussein's kick-ass campaign against the PLO (Arabs)
|
Posted By: Renegade
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 20:09
|
Bahiran, Qatar, and the UAE never went into any wars.
------------- "I kill a few so that many may live." - Sam Fisher |
Posted By: Renegade
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 20:10
I think he's not.... ------------- "I kill a few so that many may live." - Sam Fisher |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 20:10
|
I believe all those states had contingents in the allied army against Iraq in 1990-91.
|
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 20:18
|
they werent nations until 30 years ago anyway. and besides, all of them supported iraq, they were iraqs allies in the war against iran. so they have taken part in war, although indirectly. ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |
Posted By: Perspolis
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 20:33
| They don't have good leaders and are very dependent to west. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 22:51
|
They dont have new techonology, the terrain is desert which means a western army can cut across it easily and they can't hide like the Vietnamese in forests and they rely on God to give em a hand??
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2006 at 22:58
|
Why Arabs loose wars? The Israeli army is simply too good. ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 01:13
|
Does an individual Arab country going to war make it an "Arab" war? Arab states involved in armed conflicts may not be winning, but look at Arab guerrilla wars; they bring superpowers down to their knees. Lebanon didn't fight a state-to-state war with Israel, but Hizbullah managed to kick them out not long ago. America can't win a war in Iraq because of Iraqi resistance. With all its mighty power, Israel can't fight off the Palestinians. Let's be realistic. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 04:32
|
I see we are discussing of modern era only. In the last 60 years the arab states have indeed lost many wars, but I don't think it's hard to explain why. The arab countries, and their armies, are young. Israel may seem a young state but it isn't. Israel is a creation of the west, with a lot of support from the west, and a legacy coming from the west. (What I mean is that most Israelis come from Europe, either eastern or western). Israel is a part of Europe in Asia, like crusader state. It's army is a western army. The arab countries have made a development. Egypt in the war of 1973, although still having the problems of the arab armies, still managed to greatly increase the performance of her army. And let's not forget, that the equipment of the arab countries can not be compared with that of Israel and USA (+allies). And at last, I thought that Iraq won the war with Iran. The reason why Iran was so difficult to beat is (according to my limited knowledge) the fact that since Iraq's initial attack failed, Iran's overdouble size tiped the balance. Iran also had a pretty decent army from the Shah's era. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 05:10
|
Yes, Arab states cannot win against modern armies, because they're not geared up to fight them. Similiarily, modern armies are not geared up to fight guerrilla wars against Arabs. Besides, what kind of wars are you talking about? The kind where armies drop down rocket bombs from the sky, or send unmanned fighter planes to do that? ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 07:22
I don't think this is really it. Plenty of examples of young armies being quite fearsome, eg ANZAC and Canadian armies in WW2, USA in 1812, Germany in WW1. Look at China, it is an old country but the current state and its military (and military doctrine) is about the same age as most of the Arab states, and it has a large, powerful, and professional army, when the formal PLA was just one year old it managed to secure its objectives in Korea against US and international forces (not a total victory, but it achieved what it set out to do, keep the US far from the Yalu River). I tend to think Mira is more on the right vein, Arab armies seem to be highly proficient at guerrilla warfare but for some reason do not seem to do well in conventional conflict. It's sensible to develop a guerrilla tradition in their position; no matter how much they developed their conventional forces, they would not be enough to withstand superpowers. |
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 18:01
|
no, the war ended in stalemate, but if we are to pick a winner, it would be iran because 6 years of the war was in iraqi territory, and the war ended in iraqi territory. but again, the war was ended in stalemate in 1988, however, iraq would have collapsed in a matter of months had the west not helped them. ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |
Posted By: Perspolis
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 19:03
A lot of non- iraqi arabs fought at Iran vs Iraq war for Iraq. arab countries support sadam with bilions of dollers and equipment. If they didn't help Iraq. Iraq had lost the war in second year. |
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 19:11
|
not only the arab countries, but all of the western world supported iraq with money, weapons, satellite imagry, etc... ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 20:26
|
And they still effectively lost the war.
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2006 at 22:41
What superpower have Arabs brought down to there knees? "All" of Israel's mighty power? Yeah, lets be realistic.
How is this relative to the thread? Are you conceding that Arabs suck in open warfare? Are Arabs superior guerrilla fighters to this type from other areas of the world?No Are Arabs actually good fighters?I would say,yes Perhaps they havent chosen their enemies wisely?Yes ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2006 at 01:18
|
First of all, the title to this topic jumps out at me as racist, but i'll forgive you for now.
What i don't think people understand is that the middle eastern countries' customs are shaped by their religion. and i personally support them in their beliefs. the western world has no right to interfere with their beliefs. The military descisions of arab armies can seem crazy at times, yes. As well the wars that arabs lose are the ones fought against the better equipped western world, or other arab countries with a better army. Its no wonder they lose when the forces are outmatched ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2006 at 04:00
Hmm, you have apoint there. First of all, the ANZAC was not a young army. The ANZAC came from Oceania, which used to be British colony. They bear the customs of the British. But indeed, communist China in Korea war was young. I'm not sure how to explain their very good performance in that war. Probably, it is because they had gained enough experience fighting against the nationalists and the Japanese, to not be considered a "young" and unexperienced army. THink, the same goes to Vietnam. And in 1973 war, Syria almost defeated Israel. She broke the line at Golan, but (at least according to Israelis) Israel threatened with a nuclear attack and the Syrians haulted. Israel gained enough time to reinforce it's positions, and counterattack. So, we can say that in the open field, the Arabs (Syria) won the battle, but it was other factors, beyond the capabilities of the Arab nations that decided the end of this war. I think that what Arab armies lack (which is pretty much what I meant when I called them "young") is experience. There hasn't been any important war recently in the area, that we could use to see the Arab performance. I think that Egypt for example is capable of waging a good war. For Syria I'm not sure, as Syria is monolithic in her thinking. Iraq, did not have the experience against "good" enemies (Israel). The misuse of airforce during the Gulf war, is a proof to that. In some years, a more objective view of the recent Iraq war will come out, and I think we'll see that when it comes to the mere infantryman, the Arab is able to compare with the heavily geared, highly trained USA man. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2006 at 15:25
Hmm .. You're right. America is not the "superpower" it was. So let's just say they bring down powerful states down to their knees.
A country with such a huge defense expenditure - you'd think they'd win a war easily. They can't even win a war against their army-less neighbor.
Yes. Arabs can't really fight planes that drop down bombs from the sky. Arab states are as new as Israel. Some even gained their independence much later. Unlike Israel, they didn't have a "Holocaust" issue to exploit the West with and drain tons of money out of it. They had to pay for all their war technology. Most importantly, Arabs don't have a "superpower" for an ally. Arabs suck in your wars, which are all about dropping bombs on innocent civilians to coerce the government into submission. You can't fight man-to-man, you fight rocket-bombs-dropped-down to men, women, old and young.
But they're certainly doing an exceptionally good job at it.
Or maybe those who are fighting against Arab guerrilla warriors haven't made intelligent choices themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2006 at 15:36
Hmm .. Yeah, it's a bit complicated. People have done studies on this subject. It's not just the lack of war technology; there's also the class-issue in the army hierarchy. The foolish pride, and who takes orders from who and what not. Arabs are very disorganized - and we know that about ourselves. ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2006 at 22:25
Tweeked the title a little.
The U.S. is the only "superpower" in the world and still capable of projecting power like no other entity has ever had the ability to. My state of Washington is hardly on its knees and stronger than ever. I see hard working Arabs contribute to this every day.
You and I both know that if Israel had the will, they could wipe-out every last "Palestinian" in a day. Funny, 4.5 million Jews in tiny Israel surrounded by 300 million Arabs and they cannot take care of business. 
Im glad you are proud of them. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 03:33
The only superpower that has had a major attack at home, you mean. You seem very proud of your state. Good for you. I just hope you're not as proud of the fact that your state is responsible for the torturing and killing of so many innocents around the world, and labeling them "collateral damage."
I don't think Arab countries have anything like the Dimona reactor, or an ally, as I said, with a veto right. But why should Arabs take any action anyway? Even with all the checkpoints, walls and high security, Palestinians are still "hitting at home." If Israel was able to wipe-out all Palestinians, they would have done so long time ago. ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 05:08
Yeah, thats the one Mira. Is it on its knees?
Unlike your glorified warriors which are killing innocents around the world, innocents that are the specific targeting in the first place.
If you think Israel lacks the ability but has the desire to wipe out all the Palestinians as the Palestinians or Hamas themself actually do, then I think your hijab or whatever is currently on your head is a little too tight.
------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 05:30
I don't know how else you'd explain the fact that they can't control a country half the size of the US, and a bunch of "insurgents." They're even making plans to pull out.
I think you're the one glorifying a terrorist country. By your own definition, your country is terrorizing innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I don't think "collateral damage" is equivalent to "specific target." Or maybe it is - one concept used before you drop the bomb, and the other right after you hold a press conference.
How interesting to see a mod violating the forum rules. I find it quite insulting and derogatory of you to say that my hijab is "a little too tight." I think you're a bit too arrogant. Believe what you want if it makes you feel better, and keep half-masting your flag at the death of every soldiers. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 06:02
|
I don't think that the USA are on their knee. Their casualties in Iraq are exteremely low. Their only problem is the large amount of money that goes to the army in Iraq, but let's face it, USA have more than enough money. I could say only that they cannot pull out, even though they would want to, because Iraq became very unstable, and without them it would collapse. Although I also admire the heroic resistance in Iraq, I'm thinking that perhaps it's best for Iraqis to settle down for a while, until the Americans leave. Because as long the Americans stay their government is bound on them. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 06:08
|
The resistance will cease to "resist" when the occupation is
gone. We don't hear as much about confrontations between the
resistance and non-American troops. It's always got to do with
the "American invaders." Europeans are more civilized when it comes to war, I guess. ------------- |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 06:31
|
Mira,
I personally do not believe Israel has as a purpose to wipe out all Palestinians,but simply to ensure its survival. 20 percent of the citizens of Israel today are of Palestinian origin, if the purpose of Israel was to wipe them out, why would it give them citizenship?
This is simply not true. I hope you are aware of the Frency occupation of Algeria and its war of independence (between 300,000 - 1 million died, 2-3 million were made refugees). ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 06:38
Yes, I guess you're right. They can't and don't want to wipe
out all Palestinians. It is technically impossible (unless they
follow the American example in Hiroshima.) The point is, Israel
may not want to eliminate the Palestinians, but it also can't win a war
against them.
Oh! You're absolutely right. Europeans may not be any better, but I still think they've shown better respect for human rights in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. ------------- |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 06:40
|
Basically, lack of determination is the most important reason, I believe.. This is an example I always tend to give, by Polish war journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski: "During the 1973 War, Israelis of all ages were rushing to the frontline and working their best to help their army, while many Syrian Arab men were going on with their regular curriculum of smoking waterpipes 20 kilometers behind the front(Golan Heights)" ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 08:32
There has often been a societal and cultural difference. Has anyone read Victor Davis Hansen's Carnage and Culture?
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 11:24
|
Mira,lighten up. You posted a picture of yourself wearing a hijab.
Collateral damage the same as specific target? I would rather be arrogant than ignorant.
They are not pulling out soon. If you knew, you would know that the discussion concerning Rumsfield lately is that he is trying to run Iraq like a corp. i.e., with as little as possible. But anyway, you cant seem to tell the difference between trying to stabilize a country to a real war. The kind of war Arab countries seem to always lose these days. Ill have to catch that,Pike. VDH is one of todays best thinkers. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 11:41
I sure did. But that doesn't mean you can implicitly suggest that hijab can "veil" my thinking. What you meant was clear.
I'm glad you know the difference. The difficult part is to educate your government regarding that matter.
"Rum's Field"? Is that like a field of wine? Anyway - Rumsfeld can say what he wants. Stabilizing Iraq by sending its people to torture chambers will only encourage more hostility and hatred towards Americans. If your soldiers fought man-to-man, at least, instead of dropping down bombs on villages, maybe then we'd be able to better tell whether Arabs lose "real wars" or not. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 11:53
|
Mira: I think we all understand that you don't care for the United States. That is your right. However, please refrain from hystrionics in the forum. The response to cattus was snotty, and your comment on "real wars" was both ill informed and uncalled for.
|
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 11:54
------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:02
|
Hmm .. Try harder, Pacifist. Edit: Or maybe I should just heed the advice in your signature. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:03
Mr Moderator defending his fellow American, Could you please tell me what my hijab has got to do with this topic? ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:04
I guess America could not win a war in Europe because of German resistance. The Israelis have been "fighting off" Palestinians and more formidable opponents for almost 60 years.
|
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:05
|
@Mira You should try harder to understand, instead of mixing your emotions with reality. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:06
The hijab? Well, that observation was made by cattus, not me. And I am a moderator of this forum. That is part of the responsibility.
|
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:08
Exactly. So why are you addressing me in your post? ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:09
|
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 12:12
|
And by the way, stop making personal attacks when you run out of arguments - it won't get you anywhere. ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 23:20
Mira, Because it was obviously a joke preceded by an emoticon. Continuous insults,are not allowed but poking fun by regulars will not hurt anyone here. I didnt know you were so sensitive about hijabs so I apologize. Hijab or not, your thinking is anything but clear.
True. An understatement actually. I believe she dislikes the U.S. so much, she would rather see that Arab dictator still have his grip on Iraq than American forces be there. The simple formula that goes both ways.. the friend of my enemy[Israel] is my enemy?
Uninteded death is sadly a side-effect of every war. However, the twenty five thousand casualties(which is exaggerated and not all by coalition forces), could have been worse. By what I read from some, you would think that Iraq was carpet bombed.
Now the U.S. is currently herding Iraqi citizens like cattle into torture chambers?
Wait,the U.S. put troops on the ground to pull Saddam out of a hole and your fighters of choice hide among civilians and blow up people indiscriminately. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 02:44
|
I have the same opinion about you; whether you live in Washington or amongst the Amish in Pennsylvaniya.
You are free to believe what you want. I do not "dislike the US," but I certainly despise the US government. We're all glad Saddam is finally gone. We realize, however, that his position as your favorite ally in the region has been replaced. So it took your government this long to realize he was a criminal, and dissociate itself with his regime? Yes, it's such a relief he's gone, but I don't see why innocents had to pay the price - and continue to do so - with their own blood. The US government was not the "enemy," despite its pro-Israel policies, until Bush Jr. won the elections. Evidently, 9/11 only happened when Bush became president.
What you read is not necessarily the truth. You starve the people for 10 years and then expect them to welcome you with wide-open arms? And to add more to the distrust and hostility, you throw them in Abu Ghraib, and drop down bombs on their villages. I'll accept your argument about the "unintended death," but what about the torture? Is Abu Ghraib "unintended," too?
I wish it was the case in Iraq alone. Afghanistan is not any better.
Saddam was unarmed. You're proud of fighting unarmed soldiers and civilians? Not surprising. Reminds me of how Tim McVeigh was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (and four other medals, too!) for killing surrendering Iraqi soldiers. It all backfired, though. *Sigh* As for the so-called freedom fighters who hide among civilians - neither I, nor any God-fearing Muslim supports or approves of that. But those who target armed forces are only practicing their right. I wouldn't be upset if Americans targeted armed people. To claim that Americans don't kill civilians is laughable. Of course they do. Are the bombs you drop down on villages some hi-tech ones, such that they can distinguish between innocent civilians and armed insurgents? You are condenmning the Iraqi fighters' indiscriminate killing of innocents while targeting American soldiers. Well, guess what? Your troops are doing the exact same thing. So a few insurgents hiding in a village gets that whole village leveled down? (Haven't we gone way off-topic?) ------------- |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 08:24
I watched a Discovery program about his capture and he was not unarmed, he had a gun with him. But he did not use it. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 08:58
Thank you, bg_turk, for correcting me on such a trivial matter. So basically, a bunch of heavily armed American soldiers were sent to capture an armed-but-didn't-use-his-weapon Saddam, who was also all alone with no guards? The story doesn't even end at that. AFP had a news report published for a few days about Saddam being caught by the Kurds, drugged and left to be recovered by American troops. So even the "heroic" - if we are to consider it so - capturing of Saddam Hussein is disputed. Let's stick to more important details now, shall we? ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 11:26
Thats right, it has gone way off topic because you turned this into an anti-american thread like all seem to on this forum.
The scandal the UN was involved in with Saddam is horrible. Supposedly hundreds of thousands of kids died because Saddam did not allow the supplies in the oil-for-food program to be distributed correctly. Condemn Saddam and the UN all you want. If this stopped though, would the dying under Saddam stop?No. The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq documented hundreds of thousands civilian executions by Saddam and there was no end in sight to the killing on this scale. So what is the alternative? Should the U.S. with all its power as 1441 is staring them in the face sit and let another Anfal happen? It took war to remove him and war itself unfortunatley causes death. It sucks 25-30 thousand have died to remove this A-hole. Ofcourse, the casualty figure is not a representation of those killed by U.S. forces and innocent civilian death is much less. How much, we will never know but look at this which uses statistics from 'Iraq Body Count'. I think it makes some good points.
It was wrong that those guys were humiliated at Abu Ghraib, but keep some perspective. What would Saddam be doing there if he were still in power. Torture? Saddam murdered,beat, raped, cut off limbs, gouged out the eyes of people there on a regular basis. In one year alone at Abu Ghraib,he executed 4,000 prisoners. He was beheading women and political prisoners there right up to the war. Honestly,you would think those that were out of line went unpunished and U.S. could care less that this happened.  ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 11:29
You may think it is a trivial matter, but OBL's fatwa came out in '96 on Al Quds Al Arabi. What about WTC in 93? What about the U.S. embassies, Khobar, the Cole, ect.. ? ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 13:56
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 14:50
|
Osama targetted the US after the gulf war because he felt insulted by the Royalty of Saudi Arabia for choosing the USA to fight Saddam after Osama helped fight off the USSR. It was like a smack in the face to have what he thought were all Christian soldiers and a Christian nation to come into the Saudi Arabian peninsula and setup a base on the "holy Lands", and I quote that because that was the exact words I heard it called. I don't know if Muslims in general, or the extremist even consider the Peninsula a holy land or not. After that, you get a timeline of a attacks done on US targets after the first Gulf War. On Abu Gharib(is that spelled right?) anyways, it wasn't even all the prison guards that did it, it was one shift. The other shift that worked that floor didn't even know about the abuses, how would they? They weren't supposed to interract with the prisoners, nevermind listen to them unless they were actually ill in which case they'd follow training and not have a conversation. The other shift would guard, serve them food and wait til they were done. When the shift that performed these hidious acts came in they were basicly partying, even having sex. Now usually if a government was going to do something like this, don't you think they'd get professionals? These people were far from professional, one got pregnant! I mean honestly, think it through! Besides that look at the pictures! They were having fun at the expense of poor victims. If it was torture or abuse condoned by the Military or Government officials, 1. a women wouldn't get pregnant by her commander while on duty under circumstances where the government itself is paying close attention to a sensitive operation like you claim this to be, 2. You wouldn't be taking photo's of yourself if you were a proffesional in abuse and torture, which the government would definitly send since the idea is not to let the public know, 3. You don't pick a building thats well known and notorius for these kinds of actions in the past. I mean, I know our adminstration is dumb, but they are the most secretive adminstration we had since Nixon. It's alittle to obvious that if they were to actually have such orders carried out, it's be far from the action and away from any known land marks or areas known for such abuses. Why we went to Iraq, I don't know, it's all bull as far as I'm concerned. The reason Osama hates us is because we went after the man that appearantly Bush also hates. Unfortunatly, Bush didn't get his priorities strait and decided to abandon the idea of capturing the man who actually harmed American Civilians. Now we got alot of blood on our hands, I can only hope we can bring them some kind of future... ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 15:23
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 16:40
If you cared as much about Arab lives as you say you do, you should. Did you even look at the numbers I posted, he cant kill like that anymore? As evil? That speaks volumes about your position and may even be some insight into the title of this thread. Who said anything about "accepting", is the U.S. Army still abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib as it did in 2003? This "global phenomenon", I dont know what you are talking about. U.S. interest were attacked more under Clinton than Bush. As far as anti-american sentiments, who cares in the long run if the right thing was done.
That is completely true if you believe that Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to keep Kuwait. The U.S. went to the region with a coalition that included Arab countries to remove him from that Kuwait. Throughout the 90's, Saddam shot at U.S. planes enforcing the no-fly zones(to protect Iraqis) for the UN Security Council what seemed every day. This and a series of Saddam truce violations led to resolution 1441. George Bush is not Bill Clinton. Whats the difference here, Mira? You said we are all glad that Saddam is gone. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2006 at 22:02
|
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... ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 03:24
He was your ally for so long, and he did all the killings while he still was. When did you start caring?
Elaborate, please.
We'll only know if and when more pictures are leaked. Rumsfeld was accused of approving these tactics. I don't think it'll stop at that. Let's wait to hear what those who leave Abu Ghraib alive - if they do - have to say about the torture there. People are still dying in Iraq. Your government is still distributing "reconstruction contracts" right and left, as if it was your terrirtory.
US interests were attacked abroad by a group of people. Under Bush, America, its interests and its allies were attacked "at home."
There's a big difference, cattus. The US was involved in the previous Gulf War with the support and approval of the international community + the UN. This time, the US went to war ignoring the UN and the international community. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 17:45
I guess the war from 2003 hasn't been lost yet... |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 20:15
Ask the Iraqi army if it was lost.
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 02:08
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.
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?
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 02:16
And now we are making up for it. Objectives change,ofcourse the U.S. did not support any murder that Hussein did. Should we have not been allied with the murderous Stalin in the '40s?
You think the U.S. in Iraq is as evil as Saddam was. Thats bad judgement. Spends a minute http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/apr06/iraq_fs23_041406.pdf - here .
We didnt ignore the UN, support from the international community would have been nice but it was not needed.
Do you actually believe that Rumsfeld approved of what happened at Abu Ghraib? The fact that pictures of prisoner abuse are not streaming out of Iraq is proof enough that abuse like that continues. Thats wonderful logic.
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 02:43
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. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 03:49
|
Making up for it, how? People are being killed every day. At least Saddam didn't massacre people every single day.
Don't you have an objective source to share? How about you look at the situation from an Iraqi perspective, http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ - here .
That's a very arrogant thing to say. And of course the US went to war ignoring the UN's opposition to a military resolution. The whole world was not as dumb to buy the WMDs lie. It may have deceived your citizens, but not the whole world.
Yes, I believe Rumsfeld approved of the torture tactics. Evidently, the same tactics are said to have been used in Guantnamo first. And you misunderstood what I was saying. In any case, we'll just have to wait to hear what those who will come out of Abu Ghraib - if they ever do - have to say about the torture practices. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 06:40
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 06:51
|
That's an opinion I respect, but not necessarily agree with. There's nothing to get upset about, of course. Thank you for your perception. ------------- |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 11:02
|
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.
------------- 
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 00:45
Objective source? You posted a blog, I could post those all day from positive Iraqis or U.S. troops that are in or have returned from Iraq and give their perspectives. I gave you a link to USAID which is trying to make a difference in Iraq and help the people!
Interesting, you are suspicious of Rumsfeld and not Saddam? Given Saddam Hussein's track record, who knows what kind of killing he did behind closed doors every day. Lets take a look again at the murder he is capable of..
Going by that the killing has decreased. Ofcourse the murder we hear of today in Iraq is not being done by American soldiers but by the warriors that you're so proud of but whats the difference,right? There werent frequent suicide attacks under Saddam but does that mean that the people were any happier? Look to North Korea, is the lack of insurgents a testament to the quality of life there or the police state they live in? Give Iraq time, it may turn into the envy of the Arab world.
The authority to act was there. The whole world, like the UN, France, Germany and Russia?
No, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are completely different. Please provide information where Rumsfeld approved of what happened at Abu Ghraib. |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 03:12
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-BD92-EC91CD62D509.htm - 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? |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 03:42
|
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&ex=1103259600&en=76ccd089725f8a3c&ei=5094&partner=homepage - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/national/16stress.html?hp& amp;ex=1103259600&en=76ccd089725f8a3c&ei=5094&pa rtner=homepage
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.
Who exactly gave you the authority? And is that the world for you? No wonder you Americans know nothing about the rest of the world. Please check a world map. The world is bigger than that.
Abu Ghraib tactics were first used at Guantanamo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07 /13/AR2005071302380.html Rumsfeld approved of Abu Ghraib tactics. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319090/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319090/ http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/04/1088879370478.html - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/04/1088879370478.h tml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/wtort04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixnewstop.html - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07 /04/wtort04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixnewstop.html Want more? ------------- |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 04:34
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.
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.
One source I read said he was a "treasure trove" of information.
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)..
Res. 1441 and the congress of the U.S.
I dont understand why you posted that. I said I could post "those" like Omar's ( http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ - 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. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 06:20
By your logic, bin Laden becomes completely innocent of all accusations against him. Please allow me to elaborate: bin Laden called for a holy war against the infidels. He didn't "specifically" say how; he just approved of a "broad policy" of war. So if somebody went completely out of line and flew planes into the Twin Towers, does that make bin Laden responsible?
I don't think I really said that. I'm sure different types of abuses are going on all over Iraq, not necessarily identical to Abu Ghraib, but as bad or worse, nonetheless. Fallujah is a good example, I believe.
Obviously - they still can't find bin Laden. Useful "treasure trove" of a Qahtani, I'd say.
I think you're the one who is blinded from seeing that. You don't think your government(s) is criminal? Look at all the destruction you've brought to the East. From WWII, to Vietnam, and then Afghanistan and now Iraq. Nuclear bombs here, Agent Orange (and all the other colors) there, depleted uranium ... What are you doing to people?
Sure. He got more weapons to commit his atrocities.
"For the long-term good of the planet." Interesting. So what good did America's alliance with Saddam have?
Your congress doesn't rule the world, FYI. Your congress can give you authority to do something within your own borders, not attack a sovereign state. Resolution 1441? Aren't you ashamed of bringing that up? The resolution was about the WMDs. Where are they?
IraqTheModel? Lol, the guy has a link to FoxNews. Gimme a break. |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 11:41
|
Specifically the inspection for them. Saddam did not comply. The UN gave us the casus belli we needed, whether they ended up regretting it later or not. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 17:53
You are wrong. Three days before the deadline, Saddam Hussein accepted Res. 1441 and agreed to comply. |
Posted By: Cellular
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 19:09
Afghanistan-now tell me, why exactly was that such a horrible thing? Afghanistan harbors terrorists, and does not hand over Osama bin Laden. This is not a good reason to attack? You think any invasion of a islamic country is a war on islam. While muslims slaughter christians everyday in Sudan no one speaks of this War on christianity, but this is exactly what Osama and al Queda, as well as many other extremists have claimed, a world under islam.
You believe the US is on its knees? Your crazy, a couple hit and run attacks and then hiding in the desert is not going to ever defeat the US, but will only delay their own defeat. Has anyone ever came to think that once the attacks on the US stop, the quicker they will pull out? The US government always talks of progress untill they can pull out, and more attacks do just the opposite.
------------- Photo shows a Mexican flag flown above an upside-down U.S. flag during a high school student protest over immigration reform. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 22:38
He accepted the Resolution on November 13th, 2002, but there was a given deadline for full compliance he didn't meet. March 17th, 2003. Unless you're talking about one of the other myriad deadlines. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 02:52
Only you would try to argue that,Mira. And now your going to the side bringing up WW2 and Vietnam. You've continued to imply that torture continues(without proof) in Iraq, ignoring that people were punished for Abu Ghraib. How is the U.S. NOW as evil as Saddam was?
Yes, in the link section along with Yahoo,BBC,MSNBC.. He is not sponsored by Fox. Guess you wont listen to Iraqis that have good things to say.
No. Whether he actually had WMDs or not, it shows the U.S. was not the only country that believed Saddam had weapons. Ofcourse some would not follow through because of underhand deals or just plain chicken. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 07:18
You are wrong, again. Are you sure your government didn't lie to you as usual? It was big news here when he accepted the resolution BEFORE the second deadline. For the sake of the argument, let's say you the US wanted to enforce Resolution 1441. Why was Saddam overthrown? The Resolution makes no mention of a regime change. The government of Saddam submitted a 12-thousand page report on the WMDs. You rejected it, calling it a fraud. Where is your biggest fraud now; the WMDs? The new deadline was not a coincidence. The US government realized that people will be performing Hajj in February, 2003. Hajj is a sacred month where Muslims are not permitted to fight. Choosing March 17, 2003, for a deadline was also not a coincidence, since the 'Aashura day celebrated by the Shia fell on March 15, of that year. |
Posted By: Mira
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 07:23
The fact that Iraqis are still resisting, and that some officials in the government are calling for the US troops to leave - that's an indication of how unwanted the US is. They've only caused destruction and they're asking others to pay for it. You fix your own mess. Why should we pay for it? Your Secretary of State comes here and asks us to double our contributions for the re-building of Afghanistan and Iraq. Like hello? We didn't unbuild to rebuild it again. You did.
He doesn't need to be sponsored by FoxNews. The fact that he chose to link his blog to these news sites gives an idea of how and what he thinks.
Or because they didn't want to lie like your government did? |
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 20:56
I think we're talking about different deadlines. Which deadline are you talking about? What did he have to do and when? I was talking about the March 17th one. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 19:21
|
I would like to draw the attention of thous how see the Arab guerilla as a winning force to the fact that they are fighting against low obaiding coutries. Arab guerilla can succed only against westren forces, Israel included. When Siria ruled Lebanon thier was no Guerilla fighters because the Sirains tactics was the Arab one: THAHER. Meaning, revange. any Guerilla fighter knew that his family will pay the price of his dids. Any one how lives in the orient knows how important the family to it's members, and that he will not compromise his family security for any cost. But' when it comes to Americans or Israelies, the families are secure, and the "freedom fighters" can operate freely. In the moment the civilizied forces will loose a bit of the civilization, and act according to the arab Thaher rules, the pucture will turn. But, in that case the western forces will loose it's morales, and I do not know what is worse.
------------- |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 19:36
Im sure a palestinian suicide bomber knows that if he carries out the mission, then his families house is likely to be demolished and his family rendered homeless. So i doubt this can be considered "secure." And syria was a stablizing force in Lebonon, so there wasn't the same urge to fight them as with the israelis. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 16:53
|
Hello Super Goat, Some few years ago you were right, the family's house was demolished and the bomber's family was homeless for some few hours. Some "good" organizations saw it as their holy duty to take care of this families, and in no time they were given a brand new vila and a monthly rent of US 800.00. So, this system was not very helpfull. Then, some of the good souls went to the Israeli High court and claimed that it is "unhuman" to demolish murderers houses, and the Israeli high court agreed. The "Westren" Human values are more importent then western lives. That excatly what I said before. It is very confortable to fight against west values. About the Lebanese, I do not have to argue with you about that. Just look at any paper in your country. How the Syrians kill key figures in Lebanon, when they say something against the Syrians. But if you think it is not important enough for the Lebanese, how am I to argue. ------------- |
Posted By: Battle_Hymn
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 17:03
|
First Crusader War..
Saladin sayin to ppl;
Look this Frenks,look how they fightin for their religion..
if u wanna Freedom first u need to be together ALWAYS..
Tariqat wars big problem for Arabs ..
Sad thing always innocent ppl dyin..
And Word War 1 ..
Two Arabic young sayin this to our officers..
You Turks can find a leader for defendin your country..But here they'll attack to other arabs for beein leader..
PS : but in 3 years period USA lost more soldiers than Vietnams 3 years period. ------------- 
This nation has never lived without independence. We cannot and shall not live without it. Either independence or death. Ataturk |
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2006 at 19:44
Yeah due to the vietcongs hit and run tactics. |
Posted By: Battle_Hymn
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 05:05
Yea..
if u guys wanna understand very well
Read this book : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805208984/104-0493964-8227939?v=glance - The Crusades through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalof
u ppl can see one thing nothing changed in 1000 years.. -------------
This nation has never lived without independence. We cannot and shall not live without it. Either independence or death. Ataturk |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 11:46
|
I had given this example many times before in Arab-Israeli War threads, and now I will give again... It is from Ryszard Kapuscinski, a Polish war journalist who went to various conflict areas around the world... "From what I see, Israeli people were all running to the front and get mobilized for war while Arab men in Syria were all smoking their water pipes just 20 kilometers behind the frontline in Golan"... Maybe determination was one of the most important reason...
Second, I would put superior Israeli Western equipments against Arabs' weaker Soviet equipments...
Third was the tactical abilities of Israeli commanders against their Arab counterparts.
Fourth, Israeli intelligence, Mossad, which was functioning excellently while Arab intelligence were sleeping inside Israel and didn't even bother to make counter-intelligence attempts, even if done, couldn't be successful. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 17:33
|
Common, the Arabs won in Algeria after a long hard battle in which they say they suffered a genocide by the French. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 16:22
|
For more watch "The Battle of Algiers". ------------- 
|
Posted By: Corlanx
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 08:27
|
Let’s try to answer this rasist question! The arabs are losing wars now, because they are economically backward; that means technologically and industrially backward too. We're speaking here about the arab world, not some small country or population that get some high living standard trading oil (and just that), oil that it is extracted and refined with non-arab technology (but not always western . . .). And they’re backward economically, because they're backward socially: the sad reality these societies were not able to incorporate modernity's features like democracy, individual freedoms and human rights, economical freedoms, political notions and institutions like secularism and religious freedom, but economical liberalism too, make them unable to compete not only with the west, but with any other ethno-cultural entity or country, like china, india, russia and japan. Economical success is proportional and influenced by all these societal features. A good exemple is the fact the arab societies deprive themselves of ~ 50 p. of their work force and creativity, by discriminating women (more than others). Of course, for that societal gap, the west and russia share a limited responsibility, but it’s obvious a irrelevant one, and the proof is that all the other big cultural and power centers are continuously getting better when compared with the west. The only positive feature arab countries can show us, is their demography; but that's also a complication for a too fragile economy. Anyway, a really strange idea to suggest that arabs (or any other ethnicity) are somehow destined to lose wars . . . |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 10:56
|
Have you read the previous posts?
Arabs are not backwards socially, as much as you think. You know Afghanistan is different than Lebanon or Jordan.
True, with little money the arab nations cannot have good equipment etc.
Plus, the arabs had no patron to teach them how to fight (USA or USSR), they had to learn alone how to use their weapons. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |