Comments on: Our tentative friends http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:09:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Erick S http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65828 Erick S Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:25:25 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65828 Well, minor disagreements are much better than major disagreements, because they don't tend to end with a nuclear mushroom :) Well, minor disagreements are much better than major disagreements, because they don’t tend to end with a nuclear mushroom :)

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65827 Joseph Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:13:52 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65827 Erick S -- I've asked Danny to forward my e-mail address to you. Erick S — I’ve asked Danny to forward my e-mail address to you.

]]> By: unaha-closp http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65802 unaha-closp Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:53:44 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65802 Erick, "The alliance will not be abandoned by Israel." Good. I had disagreed with Danny the admin saying: "The problem is, the cooperation with the US cannot be improved, but abandoned.", but with you I have only minor disagreement. Erick, “The alliance will not be abandoned by Israel.” Good. I had disagreed with Danny the admin saying: “The problem is, the cooperation with the US cannot be improved, but abandoned.”, but with you I have only minor disagreement.

]]> By: Erick S http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65793 Erick S Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:11:42 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65793 Joseph: Can you provide your e-mail or a link to it, so we can exchange some thoughts? Joseph: Can you provide your e-mail or a link to it, so we can exchange some thoughts?

]]> By: Erick S http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65792 Erick S Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:09:17 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65792 Clearly, Unaha, you don't know the state that Israel is in right now. Sure, if we had the land mass of Texas, filled with a homogenic Jewish population, then there was no need to consider any violent approach. But in reality Samaria, Judaea, the Galilee, the Negev... Virtually all of Israel is infested with Arabs, which are not loyal at best, or at war with us at worst. In practice, as Obadiah stated, Israel is being reduced to an 8 mile wide beach-strip. Even that would have been acceptable, if that beach-strip was not besieged by countless enemies - Diplomatically, economically, and militarily. The alliance will not be abandoned <i>by Israel</i>. If the US government insists on the destruction of Israel out of some major error of judgement, then there are other countries in the world to ally with. That, on the other hand, is very unlikely - for the reasons that I already explained. The Arabs are just as aggressive as they can be, because, unlike Israel, they do <b>not</b> fear the west. They are waging their unholy war anyways. Aggression levels will not change, since the US does not act as a deterrent to small groups, or to the Russian backed Iranians, and the North-Korean backed Syrians. So, once again - there is no peace, the Arabs aren't peaceful, and they are not pulling back any punches. If Iran will get into war with the US, it will be over the gulf oil anyways, not because of Israel. Wether Israel will pursue regional dominance over frightful obedience to its 'master', will only benefit the American army. In fantasy land, Israel is the Aggressor, Islam is a religion of peace, and pixie beams create happiness for all. Secluded islands with no apparent enemies can believe in fantasy land. People living in Israel cannot afford it. Clearly, Unaha, you don’t know the state that Israel is in right now. Sure, if we had the land mass of Texas, filled with a homogenic Jewish population, then there was no need to consider any violent approach.
But in reality Samaria, Judaea, the Galilee, the Negev… Virtually all of Israel is infested with Arabs, which are not loyal at best, or at war with us at worst.
In practice, as Obadiah stated, Israel is being reduced to an 8 mile wide beach-strip. Even that would have been acceptable, if that beach-strip was not besieged by countless enemies – Diplomatically, economically, and militarily.

The alliance will not be abandoned by Israel. If the US government insists on the destruction of Israel out of some major error of judgement, then there are other countries in the world to ally with. That, on the other hand, is very unlikely – for the reasons that I already explained.
The Arabs are just as aggressive as they can be, because, unlike Israel, they do not fear the west. They are waging their unholy war anyways. Aggression levels will not change, since the US does not act as a deterrent to small groups, or to the Russian backed Iranians, and the North-Korean backed Syrians. So, once again – there is no peace, the Arabs aren’t peaceful, and they are not pulling back any punches. If Iran will get into war with the US, it will be over the gulf oil anyways, not because of Israel. Wether Israel will pursue regional dominance over frightful obedience to its ‘master’, will only benefit the American army.

In fantasy land, Israel is the Aggressor, Islam is a religion of peace, and pixie beams create happiness for all. Secluded islands with no apparent enemies can believe in fantasy land. People living in Israel cannot afford it.

]]> By: Joseph http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65780 Joseph Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:50:24 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65780 unaha-closp -- The Danes did not have the capability to nuke Berlin, Munich and Vienna. We know, and the Muslims know, what targets would be hit, if necessary. Though I am a proud American, Hitler defeated himself by invading Russia. He would have lost even if the US had stayed out(but the Brits would have been hurting, and whatever was left of Europe would be Communist). The level of Hitler's insanity can't be comprehended -- evil, for sure, but did he intend to lose? Unanswerable. Thus with Ahmedinijahd. We cannot apply even the lessons of pathological psychology to those who are dedicated to bringing about the Apocalypse. There is no need to break alliance beween the US and Israel. The people running the government of the US have no testicles. But those of the men of the US are larger than coconuts. If the Israelis use just normal sized ones, in their own interests, the US government will do nothing to stop them, for fear of its own citizens. When it comes down, it will not be a prolonged conflict. "Sanctions" will not have enough time to mean anything. unaha-closp — The Danes did not have the capability to nuke Berlin, Munich and Vienna. We know, and the Muslims know, what targets would be hit, if necessary.

Though I am a proud American, Hitler defeated himself by invading Russia. He would have lost even if the US had stayed out(but the Brits would have been hurting, and whatever was left of Europe would be Communist). The level of Hitler’s insanity can’t be comprehended — evil, for sure, but did he intend to lose? Unanswerable. Thus with Ahmedinijahd. We cannot apply even the lessons of pathological psychology to those who are dedicated to bringing about the Apocalypse.

There is no need to break alliance beween the US and Israel. The people running the government of the US have no testicles. But those of the men of the US are larger than coconuts. If the Israelis use just normal sized ones, in their own interests, the US government will do nothing to stop them, for fear of its own citizens. When it comes down, it will not be a prolonged conflict. “Sanctions” will not have enough time to mean anything.

]]> By: unaha-closp http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65764 unaha-closp Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:51:45 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65764 A) "a state that actually fights its enemies" - apparently does not mean what I took it to mean. B) I assume that the Arabs will be more aggressive towards a small little Israel alone (strategic depth or not), than against Israel allied to superpower America. I assume that if Israel abandons America the Arab nations will strengthen their alliances with America. Cut power supply to the water pumps and throw the control rods off a cliff, Chernobyl happens. C) There are Israelli troops on the Jordan River today and you have an alliance with America today. Both of these strengthen Israel and you are telling me you need to abandon the alliance with America and break negotiations to achieve a strategic depth you already have - what the? I had assumed by strategic depth you meant - the Sinai, south Lebanon and the eastern side of the valley at a minimum. But if the existing 100 km is all you want it makes even less sense to abandon the alliance. PS - Hitler was defeated only in alliance with America and the Danes could not have done it by themselves even if with greater strategic depth. A) “a state that actually fights its enemies” – apparently does not mean what I took it to mean.
B) I assume that the Arabs will be more aggressive towards a small little Israel alone (strategic depth or not), than against Israel allied to superpower America. I assume that if Israel abandons America the Arab nations will strengthen their alliances with America. Cut power supply to the water pumps and throw the control rods off a cliff, Chernobyl happens.
C) There are Israelli troops on the Jordan River today and you have an alliance with America today. Both of these strengthen Israel and you are telling me you need to abandon the alliance with America and break negotiations to achieve a strategic depth you already have – what the? I had assumed by strategic depth you meant – the Sinai, south Lebanon and the eastern side of the valley at a minimum. But if the existing 100 km is all you want it makes even less sense to abandon the alliance.
PS – Hitler was defeated only in alliance with America and the Danes could not have done it by themselves even if with greater strategic depth.

]]> By: Erick S http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65691 Erick S Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:33:14 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65691 A) Where did you come up with the idea of attacking the U.S? We're not in the Al-Qaeda forums. B) You assume the Arabs are completely passive morons who would do nothing during those 30 years but sit and smile at the sun. You are talking as if they are peaceful now, and Israel is the aggressor; As if the middle-east is stable right now. It is just as stable as the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was. On 1933, Europe could have waited until Hitler would die of old age and Nazism would miraculously disappear, but for some reason that didn't work. C) The dreaded 'strategic depth' is a land mass about 100 kilometers wide, from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river. It is a necessity, not luxury. Anything else is a bonus. A) Where did you come up with the idea of attacking the U.S? We’re not in the Al-Qaeda forums.
B) You assume the Arabs are completely passive morons who would do nothing during those 30 years but sit and smile at the sun. You are talking as if they are peaceful now, and Israel is the aggressor; As if the middle-east is stable right now. It is just as stable as the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was.
On 1933, Europe could have waited until Hitler would die of old age and Nazism would miraculously disappear, but for some reason that didn’t work.
C) The dreaded ’strategic depth’ is a land mass about 100 kilometers wide, from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river. It is a necessity, not luxury. Anything else is a bonus.

]]> By: unaha-closp http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65683 unaha-closp Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:45:16 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65683 Erick S, Personally I think the destruction of Israel would be a highly disruptive event and bad for the world economy, something I am not okay with. Also my family has Israelli relatives by marriage who would be endangered, I offer this argument in good faith to minimise this danger. Apologies for the length. America need not act directly against Israel. Military assistance increased to Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. UN sanctions on Israel freezing of assets and banning travel. America is a long way away and quite powerful, Israel attacking it would be suicide. Thus Americas costs in weakening Israel will be quite minimal if nothing else changes. (The cost might well be higher if support of Arab regimes produces more Islamofacism, so the cost of opposing Israel could go up.) America does not care for the muslim countries. America only cares about the Suez and Gulf oil, making stability a valuable reward for weakening the means to attack of any independent Israel. For Israel to capture strategic depth without endangering the oil supply or the Suez seems impossible, so the reward in preventing this high. Low cost, high reward - for America. Israel has a 3rd less risky choice, "the peace process is an illusion", <i>but it does not need to end</i>. If Israel can keep negotiating for 20 - 30 years then Gulf oil will be gone and the Suez surpassed by the northern route (if you can believe AGW). With no oil the Arabs are irrelevent and Israel can do what it likes. Wait, make objection after objection to the suitability of the negotiations to extend them, they have been going on for 16 years already so make them last another 30. By not leaving alliance, America will continue to arm you and when the time is right they will probably even back you against the Arabs (when Islamic terrorists become more costly than the diminishing returns on the oil). Erick S, Personally I think the destruction of Israel would be a highly disruptive event and bad for the world economy, something I am not okay with. Also my family has Israelli relatives by marriage who would be endangered, I offer this argument in good faith to minimise this danger. Apologies for the length.
America need not act directly against Israel. Military assistance increased to Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. UN sanctions on Israel freezing of assets and banning travel. America is a long way away and quite powerful, Israel attacking it would be suicide. Thus Americas costs in weakening Israel will be quite minimal if nothing else changes. (The cost might well be higher if support of Arab regimes produces more Islamofacism, so the cost of opposing Israel could go up.)
America does not care for the muslim countries. America only cares about the Suez and Gulf oil, making stability a valuable reward for weakening the means to attack of any independent Israel. For Israel to capture strategic depth without endangering the oil supply or the Suez seems impossible, so the reward in preventing this high.
Low cost, high reward – for America.

Israel has a 3rd less risky choice, “the peace process is an illusion”, but it does not need to end. If Israel can keep negotiating for 20 – 30 years then Gulf oil will be gone and the Suez surpassed by the northern route (if you can believe AGW). With no oil the Arabs are irrelevent and Israel can do what it likes. Wait, make objection after objection to the suitability of the negotiations to extend them, they have been going on for 16 years already so make them last another 30. By not leaving alliance, America will continue to arm you and when the time is right they will probably even back you against the Arabs (when Islamic terrorists become more costly than the diminishing returns on the oil).

]]> By: alex http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm/comment-page-1#comment-65185 alex Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:47 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-tentative-friends.htm#comment-65185 !!americans are liar!! !!americans are liar!!

]]>