Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Arming the "rebels" in syria

Blowback.

  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#21 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:33 AM

I'd argue that the US, UK and UN forces intervention in Korea in the 50's is a classic reason why we shouldn't get involved in other peoples civil wars and politics. That conflict is still on going and unresolved and can flare up at anytime, as the last few months has proved with north Korea threatening all out war with the south and it's allies and the US has sworn to protect and go to war for south Korea. Korea and Vietnam are/where just proxy wars between the "west" and china and the soviet union(as was), millions die and even more are displaced and for what? So that the US and UK arms manufacturers can make huge profits.

No, so that South Koreans can live in a first world democracy with human rights rather than starving to death by the millions in a totalitarian hellhole like North Korea.

 

North Korea like to sabre rattle when China threatens to cut off their aid. South Korea is their favourite victim but they are more than capable of targetting Japan; and would certainly do if North Korea controlled the entire Korean peninsula.

 

Still they aren't a "client state" so all's well.


Edited by Northern Sol, 29 June 2013 - 11:36 AM.


#22 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:40 AM

I suggest you read up on Korean history. It was de facto partitioned in 1945 by the UN. The war started because the Soviet backed North Koreans invaded South Korea. The UN "invasion" more or less maintained the 1945 situation. It would be like East Germany invading West Germany with the West winning and staying non-communist and democratic. Sound like a defeat to you?
 
I see so "client state" now means "backs Palestine against Israel, Shi'ite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, Druze and Christians in Lebanon, and views Iran in a positive light". By which I'd conclude that Saudi Arabia isn't a client state and neither are any of the gulf states.

Who said anything about defeat? The Korean war ended in a stalemate, a draw in which no side lost or won. Also you really need to get away from defining a US client state based on whether a country has oil or not and whether they are Sunni or Shia, Jordan doesn't have oil but is a US client state while Syria also doesn't have oil but isn't a US client state and Iran is a Shiite country but not a client state while Bahrain is predominantly Shia and is a US client state. I hope that clears it up for you.

#23 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:53 AM

Who said anything about defeat? The Korean war ended in a stalemate, a draw in which no side lost or won. Also you really need to get away from defining a US client state based on whether a country has oil or not and whether they are Sunni or Shia, Jordan doesn't have oil but is a US client state while Syria also doesn't have oil but isn't a US client state and Iran is a Shiite country but not a client state while Bahrain is predominantly Shia and is a US client state. I hope that clears it up for you.

So what defines "client state"? You seem to make it up as you go along.

 

The Korean war ended with the North Korean occupation of South Korea repulsed. South Korea ended up as a first world country with a democracy and human rights whereas with no intervention it would have been exactly the same as North Korea. Now you want to pretend that there no difference between 1st world democracy and totalitarian state with millions starving to death for your own political reasons but to the rest of the world something important was achieved.



#24 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:16 PM

So what defines "client state"? You seem to make it up as you go along.
 
The Korean war ended with the North Korean occupation of South Korea repulsed. South Korea ended up as a first world country with a democracy and human rights whereas with no intervention it would have been exactly the same as North Korea. Now you want to pretend that there no difference between 1st world democracy and totalitarian state with millions starving to death for your own political reasons but to the rest of the world something important was achieved.

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

#25 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:23 PM

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

You have not defined "client state", you've just said that Egypt is one.

 

If "client state" means "takes orders from the US" then Jordan clearly isn't one because it resisted all attempts by the US to sign it up for the first gulf war (even Egypt was a member of the US-led coalition).

 

If "client state" means "screws over the Palestinians" then the vast majority of Arab states aren't.  



#26 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:23 PM

If they're paying cash, give 'em whatevere they like.



#27 Li0nhead

Li0nhead
  • Coach
  • 751 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

 

Thats a very blind, one sided view.

 

If i were to take the opposite view point it would be a long winded post about closing the crossing stopping people who want to blow up Israeli babies crossing over and their arms etc. 

The peace deal effectively ensuing there was little chance of a large scale war involving the two powerful neighbours. 

Also the gas deal being a simply business transaction which is agreeable for both parties.

 

See easy to be totally one sided.



#28 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:35 PM

You have not defined "client state", you've just said that Egypt is one.
 
If "client state" means "takes orders from the US" then Jordan clearly isn't one because it resisted all attempts by the US to sign it up for the first gulf war (even Egypt was a member of the US-led coalition).
 
If "client state" means "screws over the Palestinians" then the vast majority of Arab states aren't.

Name the Arab countries that lift a finger for the Palestinians and who fought along side them during operation "cast lead"?

#29 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

Name the Arab countries that lift a finger for the Palestinians and who fought along side them during operation "cast lead"?

I see so "cast lead" defines once and for all which countries are "client states"?

 

That rules out all non-Arab countries for starters - you seem to put them immediately out of the definition.

 

And for the record no Arab state fought Israel ergo by your odd definition even Syria is a "client state" even though you claim they aren't.



#30 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:42 PM

Thats a very blind, one sided view.
 
If i were to take the opposite view point it would be a long winded post about closing the crossing stopping people who want to blow up Israeli babies crossing over and their arms etc. 
The peace deal effectively ensuing there was little chance of a large scale war involving the two powerful neighbours. 
Also the gas deal being a simply business transaction which is agreeable for both parties.
 
See easy to be totally one sided.

Of course Israel blows up many Palestinian babies in gaza, the "peace" deal allowed Israel to do exactly that without retaliation from Egypt. Also Egyptians survive on something like $1 or $2 a day while their government was selling gas to a country that wiped Palestine off the map and continues to occupy the west bank and east Jerusalem at a knocked down price.

#31 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:51 PM

I see so "cast lead" defines once and for all which countries are "client states"?
 
That rules out all non-Arab countries for starters - you seem to put them immediately out of the definition.
 
And for the record no Arab state fought Israel ergo by your odd definition even Syria is a "client state" even though you claim they aren't.

"cast lead" doesn't define what countries are client states, you're the only one that is saying it does, it was just one example in egypts case along with cheap gas sold to Israel, US military and economic support/aid and the closing of the rafah crossing. The oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc wouldn't need to fight Israel, all that they'd need to do is threaten to stop oil production unless the US reined in Israel.

#32 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:58 PM

Of course Israel blows up many Palestinian babies in gaza, the "peace" deal allowed Israel to do exactly that without retaliation from Egypt. Also Egyptians survive on something like $1 or $2 a day while their government was selling gas to a country that wiped Palestine off the map and continues to occupy the west bank and east Jerusalem at a knocked down price.

You seem to think that Egypt actually has any interest in going to war against Israel. They don't.



#33 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 12:59 PM

If they're paying cash, give 'em whatevere they like.


And to hell with the consequences?

#34 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

"cast lead" doesn't define what countries are client states, you're the only one that is saying it does, it was just one example in egypts case along with cheap gas sold to Israel, US military and economic support/aid and the closing of the rafah crossing. The oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc wouldn't need to fight Israel, all that they'd need to do is threaten to stop oil production unless the US reined in Israel.

I didn't ask you for an "example", I asked you for a definition. You seem to define and redefine the term to suit your own ends.

 

E.g. the US doesn't intervene in "client states" and "client states" are the countries that the US doesn't intervene in. The conclusion of which is that Syria wasn't a client state until 2013 and now it is.



#35 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:03 PM

You seem to think that Egypt actually has any interest in going to war against Israel. They don't.


They did in 48', 67' and 73'. I can assure you that every man, woman and child supports the Palestinian struggle and resistance.

#36 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:10 PM

They did in 48', 67' and 73'. I can assure you that every man, woman and child supports the Palestinian struggle and resistance.

I'm trying to control my laughter at this point. It's impossible. Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states and that's nothing to do with being "client states", it has to do with the way that they have dragged Arab states into wars in '48, '67 and '73 as well as their tendency to get involved in internal politics - e.g. Palestinians in Kuwait supported the Iraqi invasion.



#37 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:15 PM

I didn't ask you for an "example", I asked you for a definition. You seem to define and redefine the term to suit your own ends.
 
E.g. the US doesn't intervene in "client states" and "client states" are the countries that the US doesn't intervene in. The conclusion of which is that Syria wasn't a client state until 2013 and now it is.

But the US is intervening in syria on the side of the "rebels" who want to overthrow the Assad regime not the other way round whilst backing the bahraini government and the Saudi forces that came to the rescue of the Bahraini royal family against the democracy protesters in bahrain. A clear example of which countries are and are not US client states if ever there was one. Also have you anything to say on the Arab oil producing countries who could threaten to cut off oil production and supply to the "west" to help the Palestinians?

#38 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

I'm trying to control my laughter at this point. It's impossible. Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states and that's nothing to do with being "client states", it has to do with the way that they have dragged Arab states into wars in '48, '67 and '73 as well as their tendency to get involved in internal politics - e.g. Palestinians in Kuwait supported the Iraqi invasion.


Well your mask has finally slipped, parroting neocon and Zionist propaganda in which you'd hear on fox news "Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states." where they not considered "parasites" in 48',67' and 73' then? The fact that you can claim that the people from the land of the 3rd holiest site in Islam, the al qasa mosque in occupied Jerusalem(al quds) are "parasites" shows that you are either ignorant or dishonest.

#39 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:36 PM

And to hell with the consequences?

What consequences?



#40 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:17 PM

What consequences?


First off they aren't paying cash, we the US and UK are giving them money and weapons gratis, secondly a large portion of these "rebels" are al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliated groups, you know 9/11, the twin towers and all that and the throat slitters of Christians, Shias etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users