Try reading Machiavelli if you're really interested in politics and drop all the Pollyanna pie in the sky idealist manure... if it were possible for ideals and values to be upheld through politics communism would have succeeded on more than just paper.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Try reading Machiavelli if you're really interested in politics and drop all the Pollyanna pie in the sky idealist manure... if it were possible for ideals and values to be upheld through politics communism would have succeeded on more than just paper.

Hmm i dunno bout that, Socialism maybe, Communism isn't all that moraly upright in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Somalia

KJ how are my points outdated can you specify, because right now I don't know what you are getting at. And My point about the Iraq war and the utter uselessness of that war besides the fact that it created carnage. My point seems valid and that fact that this whole war was orchastrated and America overstepped the UN while we preach to the world to follow the UN seems to me valid and relevant. Care to explain yourself ? Because you seem to not state what you found in my argument to be outdated.

Did you do the search?
What was your findings?
What can you find in the texts about the mission that would be relevant to your post?

I gave you the tools, I am NOT going to do your work for you.
The best way to learn things is to put the work in yourself.
That way you will not forget it as fast.

On the US ignoring the UN.
Yes and No, there were several UN mandates in place to restrict several parts of the Iraqi trade, freedom of movement and complience with inspectors.
I reckon the US had enough to invade.
Some countries decided not to be a part of that operation, but that is their perogative as free states..

Once the build up had started this animal was already out of control.

Looking back at Optio's quotation, in Post 21 regarding of the original issue of discussion post by Grimmy, one might ask which culture we are trying to save from whom. On the one side claims are being made that a war is going on against Terrorism based on radical Islam, on the other people such as, Professor Tibbi from Syria, free to speak in Europe and America about the need to accept a new form of Islam within these countries. Is it possible to have an Islam which does not follow the Koran, in which, the call for violence against non-believers is not approved?
True, Christians have also in the past also tried to spread their religion by force, but the actions of those involved were in no way covered by the teachings of Christ. Should we really make the same mistake with democracy?
To call for destruction as many on these lines do, is asking for a form of policy dating back to prehistoric times. Destroy all the people who disagree with you, and you can live in peace! Sounds good, but it has never worked!. Winning both the hearts and mind can only be done, by showing that our western way of life is better.
Military threats and actions just cause yet more violence and hate. Such methods are a sign of failure a bringing only anguish to those affected. It seemed quite clear after WW2, that an effective army is one that is so strong, that it does not have to be used. Many of today's politicians choose to disagree with this definition, with the result that we are further from peace now, than we were before Bush and Blair took their role in world history.
KJ 's View as I understand it, is that he agrees with Grimmy's comment "Our only responsibility is to protect our own. That is it. That is all." May I remind you, this was the type of driving thought behind Hitler's policies, he wanted the injustices done to Germany following WW1 corrected, what this led to is fairly well known. Unfortunately some of the remarks about Nazis these days, even within the German government itself, show an enormous lack of historic knowledge. Organisations such as The British Empire League or Klu Klux Klan were no better and grew up within our own societies. Evil s not specific to a nation or race, but All to often facts are not wanted if they do not agree with the policies being pursued,
If it is true to say, "We have mullahs preaching hatred of us" surely the first question should be: Why?
Treating the symptoms by using force may give respite, it does not cure the illness or stop its cause.
The winner take all fight is a dream, the more killed, the more will wish to take revenge may be not now, but possibly at some future date when we are not expecting it, as was the case with 9/11.
Somalia put it fairly clearly " The Senate committee and the CIA both recently stated that their were no connections between Al'qada and Saddam," so why are we making enemies of people who for years were allies in the fight against communism? Were they considered to be monsters in those days? This is not the only case where double standards and dishonesty on our side have dirtied the sort of culture we claim to be fighting for.
Some say, my country right or wrong? Surely as a true patriot it would be my first duty (as far as I can), to make sure we are right! Anything else means I am no better than those I am fighting. Phoenix80 might disagree, and from a democratic point of view this is allowed, but is "blah, blah, blah" a culture worth defending?

Originally Posted by Englander2

KJ 's View as I understand it, is that he agrees with Grimmy's comment "Our only responsibility is to protect our own. That is it. That is all."

As a soldier your first duty is to protect the citizens of your nation.
No way around THAT.
If you have a grievens with your country,s politicians you wait untill election and place your vote on the party/person you decide is worth it.
When your goverment is elected however, you as a soldier is their tool to use to do what they (as elected officials) decide is protecting your own civilians, whatever that may be.
That is my firm conviction.

The thing is, YOU also have accountability for the actions you take while under orders, but that was the part me an Grimmy saw in different ways.

//KJ.

Take orders first, obey them and ask any questions afterwards. That's the way of a soldier's life as I knew it. It was the way the Wehrmacht also operated. This was however not accepted, in many trials of German soldiers after WW2 and that is one reason I ask, if we all too often use double standards. Do we condemn others for that which we also would have done under the same conditions?

We can talk about the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq with both side arguing their views and beliefs infinitely but this thread was suppose to be about comparing Middle East militaries and discussions on Middle East armies lets stop turning it into a political battle on War in Iraq because letting that can of worms out will lead to a heated politcal debate that neither side will budge.

So guys lets keep this thread limited to discussions on Middle East militaries.

Looking at middle east militaries and which militaries have the greatest capability to inflict harm on the other, from the list I first made it comes down to Iran, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Syria (the reason why Syria is amongst those 4 powers is 2 reasons despite the fact that its military is not as modern at those other 4, those reasons are its highly trained Special forces with equipped with night vision and anti-tank missiles and its highly modern chemical and biological weapons which it can use as a last resort)