Libyan Civil War Turnout

[Hullu Hevonen]

the war is far from over!

What war is that exactly ?

There is a huge difference between unrest and a violent country with a lot of violence - like nigeria and Libya and a country in a civil war like Syria !

http://rt.com/news/libya-tribal-clashes-ntc-897/

low scale fighting that could blow up to something bigger is ongoing

[nick-bang]

the war is far from over!

What war is that exactly ?

There is a huge difference between unrest and a violent country with a lot of violence - like nigeria and Libya and a country in a civil war like Syria !

http://rt.com/news/libya-tribal-clashes-ntc-897/

low scale fighting that could blow up to something bigger is ongoing

As I said ... WHAT war ?

[Hullu Hevonen]

As I said ... WHAT war ?

as I said, could blow up

The fighting has significantly lowered and the NTC's enemy, the Gaddafi gov, has been defeated, I that war should be over, a new war could blow up. It is an plausible futuristic answer

[Hullu Hevonen]

Take a look at this, captured pro-gaddafi soldiers/mercenaries literally eating their 'own' flags.
http://rt.com/news/libya-rebels-torture-africans-679/

[nick-bang]

As I said ... WHAT war ?

as I said, could blow up

The fighting has significantly lowered and the NTC's enemy, the Gaddafi gov, has been defeated, I that war should be over, a new war could blow up. It is an plausible futuristic answer

You old Sofist ...yes I bow before your creative use of the term could ,-D

Libya as many of the new "democracies" have very significant challenges. However these are world changing events and cannot be stopped no matter the rational reasons or their inabilitty to assimiltae even the most basic of democratic tenets. In other words I fear there is only one way: full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

The sooner Syria falls, the sooner Assads family can be Ceaușescu´ed or should I say Ghadaffi´ed. ANd having completed that goal then liberate Libanon from the harsh grip of the terroists of Hezbollah. When those two fundamental goals have been achieved then its Ahamadinejad and the rest of the demented god-priests of Iran´s turn. If that were to be achieved then China would no longer be able to funnel funds and weapons to terrorists and rogue states through Iran.

But those are all in the future...

[The Khan]

When those two fundamental goals have been achieved then its Ahamadinejad and the rest of the demented god-priests of Iran´s turn.

You are too optimistic. These guys have a regular army, experince in defensive warfare, up-to-date air defense (No OSIRAK debacle) impossible-to-infiltrate society PLUS "Pasdaran" irregular suicide brigades. Your regular US soldiers will have to mow down THOUSANDS of small kids charging to clear minefields. Enjoy your dropping world opinion and liberal cries.

EDIT: Oh, and they are unscrupulous to use their yellowcake in a crude way of radiological weapon I bet.

[Hullu Hevonen]

As I said ... WHAT war ?

as I said, could blow up

The fighting has significantly lowered and the NTC's enemy, the Gaddafi gov, has been defeated, I that war should be over, a new war could blow up. It is an plausible futuristic answer

You old Sofist ...yes I bow before your creative use of the term could ,-D

Libya as many of the new "democracies" have very significant challenges. However these are world changing events and cannot be stopped no matter the rational reasons or their inabilitty to assimiltae even the most basic of democratic tenets. In other words I fear there is only one way: full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

The sooner Syria falls, the sooner Assads family can be Ceaușescu´ed or should I say Ghadaffi´ed. ANd having completed that goal then liberate Libanon from the harsh grip of the terroists of Hezbollah. When those two fundamental goals have been achieved then its Ahamadinejad and the rest of the demented god-priests of Iran´s turn. If that were to be achieved then China would no longer be able to funnel funds and weapons to terrorists and rogue states through Iran.

But those are all in the future...

I agree with everything before your Al-Assad comment, there is radical groups entering Syria from Iraq and 10,000 Libyans are being trained i Jordan that are to enter Syria. The rebels have already received foreign arms. Sure, I would agree with you earlier, before these factors came to play. Currently, I think it would be smartest to put pressure from all sides on the Assad regime, stop threatening them with all kinds of bloody options, because keeping in mind that right now that there are a number foreign armed organizations that are competing with each other and the Free Syrian Army only being an alias, it would be very destabilizing to the country and potentially to surrounding countries if the Assad gov suddenly fell apart and left militias, organizations classified as terrorist organizations, independent FSA militias, potential army generals(becoming warlords) etc competing for the power. In other words, a sudden fall of al-assad regime would create an dangerous power vacuum. Syria cannot be compared to Libya since the rebels are more splintered than those in Libya. The situation has escalated too far now, now we need a transition process, which actually Syria has started, with their recent referendum. It ain't perfect, but what is.

Btw, who are you to judge the if Iran is ruled by a "god-demented priest" or an "loved Ayatollah" AND that the Lebanese people don't support Hezbollah, if the locals of these countries don't like their political leaders, then they should step up and take action(like The Iranians already did, they supported the establishment of the Islamic Republic ). Not other countries going there and thinking that everyone else must think like them and therefore they will automatically understand your invasion of their country and think of you as "liberators". Btw, did you know that Hezbollah has significant support amongst the population and populate ~10% of their parliament seats? It's like saying that should the democrats should go "liberate" the Tea Party movements just because they might not like them, even though the Tea Party Movement has significant support or the Repubs against the Occupy Movement. Just because they may be a minority dosen't mean their not entitled to their opinions. If Hezbollah do something violent, then their internal security should deal with it, the West could of course, sell equipment, training etc. But I don't support an Invasion unless Hezbollah does something radical like an coup and kills foreigners etc.

[Hullu Hevonen]

http://rt.com/news/libya-torture-death-detainees-817/

[Hullu Hevonen]

Libya experiencing more tribal fighting, this time 50 killed.

http://rt.com/news/libya-ntc-tribal-wars-621/

[nick-bang]

That was a long post.

I dont think I can keep my answers short, so here goes:

1) Why would you disagree with my my AL-Assad comment? The man is a mad man used as a puppet by another madman, who in turn is a front figure for a demented a crazy regime, who just happens to be best friends with the worst people in this world.
The world would clearly be a better place by any definition if he was dead. And as he is a hereditary dictator then everybody would have a much smoother transition into the future if his family joined him - just stating a fact.
Leaving that aside then I fail to grasp what you mean by "radical groups". According to whoms definition exactly?
To kill a rabid dog is a rational and sensible thing to do in my book. Its just too bad that the coward is hiding behind thousands of soldiers and policeman thus hindering a smooth facilitation of his existence into a better place (for the rest of the world in general and the middleeastern populations including the syrian in particular).

2) The rebels have received moderate amounts of LIGHT AND handheld WEAPons WHICH OBVIOUSLY MEANS THEY ARE NO MATCH AT ALL FOR TANKS (ooops ... caps lock), artillery, rockets and fighter-bombers. Thus they are not a real threath to anyone except themselves. Which Assad obviously knows. Thus all this have done combined with the inept and impotent lack of actions from the rest of the world, is to cement Assads and Ahmadinejads impression that they can do anything they please because the UN and the world only talk Ad Nauseam while the syrians are slaughtered like cattle.
Just like the ones who opposed the farce and sham that the iranian "election" was.

3) I would really REALLY like to know EXACTLY what FACTS you base this rather outlandish claim on: "right now that there are a number foreign armed organizations that are competing with each other and the Free Syrian Army only being an alias"
Eh... what ?
The whole point is that Assad have slaughtered domestically and internationally anything approaching unified opposition. Thus I rather see the opposition as a ragtag assembly of very different people. Some of which have no military training at all. Hardly a foreign military group.

4) "It would be very destabilizing to the country and potentially to surrounding countries if the Assad gov suddenly fell apart and left militias, organizations classified as terrorist organizations, independent FSA militias, potential army generals(becoming warlords) etc competing for the power."

And that would be worse than the present situation in what way exactly?

5) "In other words, a sudden fall of al-assad regime would create an dangerous power vacuum."

Why and how? All they are is a bufferstate for Iran to facilitate strife in Lebanon, Israel and any other areas which Iran needs destabalized. Thus it would only be dangerous by proxy or indirectly as it would force the iranians to crack down even harder or anyone opposing their anti-humanitarian, anti-democratic, anti-feministic and anti-western regime.
As China needs Irans oil they would - as they have with Syria - protect them no matter what crimes they perpetrate domestically and internationally. And russia from a geopolitical standpoint would do the same to make sure that the gulf region did not align with the west.

That threat is the only real one...

6) "Syria cannot be compared to Libya since the rebels are more splintered than those in Libya. The situation has escalated too far now, now we need a transition process, which actually Syria has started, with their recent referendum."

More splintered ? Not really: they all want to kill Assad, which seems reasonable enough all things considered. In that way they actually are similar to much of the opposition to Ghadaffi.
That by no means that they are coherent or aligned - merely that they are not MORE incoherent and unaligned than the libyan rebels were and are.

Actually I agree completely in your statement that the situation has gone too far. However your conclusion from that statement is completely irrational given the fact that this is the middleeast:
Too much blood have flown, and only the the blood of the dictator can wash away that. No amount of academic discourse or attempts of a consensus will change that. It will never ever happen: just take the example of Lebanon ...

And what referendum are you refering to exactly ?

7) "Btw, who are you to judge the if Iran is ruled by a "god-demented priest" or an "loved Ayatollah"
Ayatollah Khomeini was completely crazy and a menace not only to the world but to his own population as well. Period.
A man who believed that a girl becomes a women when she has her first period and thus could be married is by no definition normal or rational. Combined with his antics in the war with Iraq including using children as human bombs just cemented that fact!
I could state countless other facts: but they are there for anyone to read.
Thus I claim the right to state those facts by the fact that I am a living human being.
Cogito Ergo Sum.
The Shah was no better of course, but at least he did not use religion to claim infallability in the face of irrefutable facts.
I have NO issue with Islam as a religion in any way shape or form ! So I have to stress very strongly that this is NOT some religious war or similar for me.

However it IS for Ahmadinejad and his peers !
QED

" AND that the Lebanese people don't support Hezbollah, if the locals of these countries don't like their political leaders, then they should step up and take action"

With all due respect: Dont be childish and naive.
They tried just that and their leader was assasinated for his efforts - If you have a family then you will think twice about doing the same as he did when the consequence was so obvious. As was the lack of punishment for his murderers!
The world is not always black and white and not everything can be solved academically...

9) "Btw, did you know that Hezbollah has significant support amongst the population and populate ~10% of their parliament seats?"
Thus roughly 90 % of the lebanese population does NOT support them per se - and yet Hezbollah are one of the if not the most powerful factor in Lebon. I rest my case.

10) "Just because they may be a minority dosen't mean their not entitled to their opinions."
Actually when that very loud and aggressive minority uses terror, murders etc. to facilitate their political agenda then thats EXACTLY what it means - just like it would be in any other civilized democracy! By the rule of law, organizations who live to destabalize the state and its democratically elected politicians, are illegal in every democratic nation. But its fortunately rare that they are actively pursued as that by its very nature would be to give in to the anti-democratic forces.

11) Teaparty Im neither conservative nor american - what has that got to do with anything? I dont agree with what the teaparty movement is doing. Amongst other things because it doesnt seem like they actually know what they want to do exactly as a coherent movement.

12) "If Hezbollah do something violent, then their internal security should deal with it, the West could of course, sell equipment, training etc. But I don't support an Invasion unless Hezbollah does something radical like an coup and kills foreigners etc."
IF ?
The internal security of Lebanon is in fact no match for hezbollah as Hezbollah have the full support of the syrians and thus Iranians and thus indirectly the chinese and russians...
And they have kílled foreigners AND staged coups ... so what is your point?


Again we are at an impasse:

I deeply respect your right to say and feel what you will, but it seems that the gap between what you and I think are too wide to be bridge.

Nevertheless its fun to try - and I will be looking forward to your counterpoint.

Have a nice day

[Hullu Hevonen]

That was a long post.Love it , took me almost 2H to reply had to dig up many articles that weren't that easy to find

I dont think I can keep my answers short, so here goes:

1) Why would you disagree with my my AL-Assad comment? The man is a mad man used as a puppet by another madman, who in turn is a front figure for a demented a crazy regime, who just happens to be best friends with the worst people in this world. I think I was quite clear im my last respons to that. I don't wish to repeat it. Plus there is a few things to add now when a peace process is being attempted by the UN/Kofi Annan. There is now attempts by the UN to resolve this peacefully, I wonder what is the harm in resolving this in such a manner and why you and most of 'the west' want so called regime change and further murder instead to atleast giving a more peaceful end to this. The situation ain't perfect, but Syria is still a sovereign country and they have made progress. Sure killing is still happening, on both sides, and both sides have genuine popular support. The west has now openly started to fund and arm the rebels, this cannot be denied, the magnitude of the arming and the source of the arming can be discussed. The 'east' or Russia is still "arming" Syria, which is a sovereign nation . The opposition was first as well denying the UN peace plan. Al-Assad is a dictator and may have done things before the uprising, I would not vote for him, but I think that suddenly bombing him from power runs a risk of creating a power vaccum, which would be dangerous in the case of Syria, there is no Unified Syrian Opposition. Al-Assad should be tried in a fair court after the uprising is finished, but I think it would be smartest to do it as peacefully as possible without further escalating it(just repeated my self).
Now, the west to give rebels additional funding
West is more involved that they like to admit
-II-
A ceasfire may work
The world would clearly be a better place by any definition if he was dead. And as he is a hereditary dictator then everybody would have a much smoother transition into the future if his family joined him - just stating a fact. Not a fact, don't mix Libya and Syria.
Leaving that aside then I fail to grasp what you mean by "radical groups". According to whoms definition exactly?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html
http://www.infowars.com/syrian-al-qaeda ... -bombings/
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/29/ethn ... hristians/
To kill a rabid dog is a rational and sensible thing to do in my book. Its just too bad that the coward is hiding behind thousands of soldiers and policeman thus hindering a smooth facilitation of his existence into a better place (for the rest of the world in general and the middleeastern populations including the syrian in particular). The killing of Al-Assad will not make my life any better or any westerners, will I get a pay race if my gov kills him? It would make a difference in Syria, but who are we to jugde what is right and wrong in Syria? Your comment is already filled with prejudice, "rabid dog"? Al-Assad is not hiding, in that case, are every other world leaders engaged in conflict as well hiding. Dumb rabid dogs Obama, Karzai, Kiir, Al-Bashir etc etc. What would make more sence is to peacefully(with an end to the war first) get Al-Assad off the head of state chair and then prosecuted or exiled.

2) The rebels have received moderate amounts of LIGHT AND handheld WEAPons WHICH OBVIOUSLY MEANS THEY ARE NO MATCH AT ALL FOR TANKS (ooops ... caps lock), artillery, rockets and fighter-bombers. Thus they are not a real threath to anyone except themselves. Which Assad obviously knows. Thus all this have done combined with the inept and impotent lack of actions from the rest of the world, is to cement Assads and Ahmadinejads impression that they can do anything they please because the UN and the world only talk Ad Nauseam while the syrians are slaughtered like cattle. Belive me, troops only armed with light damage can if their smart do more damage than tanks for example. Here in Finland we have "Sissi"(may sound funny to ya'll ), but what these are, are well trained troops in guerilla warfare, they are agile, can blend in and hide better than a tank, might even be able to move past enemy units etc.), I have fired an AK-like gun before, belive me, you can kill people with it too . That is as well what is happening in Syria, not all fighting are taking place in cities, there are deadly ambushes and moutain warfare in parts of Syria(that is not much covered by the media).
Just like the ones who opposed the farce and sham that the iranian "election" was.Uhm... I am certain that if elections are forced through the peace process, then there will be UN observers.

3) I would really REALLY like to know EXACTLY what FACTS you base this rather outlandish claim on: "right now that there are a number foreign armed organizations that are competing with each other and the Free Syrian Army only being an alias"
Eh... what ?Noted those links about western troops on the ground and and al-qaeda taking responsibility links above.
Some other reading about some 10k libyans trained in Jordan etc.

The whole point is that Assad have slaughtered domestically and internationally anything approaching unified opposition. Thus I rather see the opposition as a ragtag assembly of very different people. Some of which have no military training at all. Hardly a foreign military group. True, but it is not so exclusively. Yes, Al-Assad has killed people(via his supporters), but you forget a significant fact, so have the opposition. When it comes to killing civilians, both are to blaim, Al-Assad bombards cities, the opposition or al-qaeda saying to support it, terror bombs Damascus. As of civilians killed in infantry fighting, I bet there is civilians hit by both side's bullets . It don't take that long to train someone to become a solider, and teaching someone to use a gun is even easier. From personal experience, I know that even a small child could fire an AK, with the proper strength to operate it. An armed person fighting for a team or cause is not an innocent civilian.

4) "It would be very destabilizing to the country and potentially to surrounding countries if the Assad gov suddenly fell apart and left militias, organizations classified as terrorist organizations, independent FSA militias, potential army generals(becoming warlords) etc competing for the power."

And that would be worse than the present situation in what way exactly?Uhm... because, we would get a bigger civil war than we have now . Instead of having 2-ish sides, we would have plenty more, the opposition would splinter, cause their common cause to fight together would be removed. I think Anarchy would be worse. If you have too many armed groups equally strong with foreign backers, then that would lengthen the conflict.

5) "In other words, a sudden fall of al-assad regime would create an dangerous power vacuum."

Why and how? All they are is a bufferstate for Iran to facilitate strife in Lebanon, Israel and any other areas which Iran needs destabalized. Thus it would only be dangerous by proxy or indirectly as it would force the iranians to crack down even harder or anyone opposing their anti-humanitarian, anti-democratic, anti-feministic and anti-western regime. ok, this comment is honestly horrible, your earlier comments in this post can be seen as fair arguments, but this demonstrates that you really don't know what your talking about. Who are you to say that islamic people that honestly think that it is morally right to force women to wear burkas, belive in more authorian regimes(some people like to have someone to tell them what to do)? If people sanction this than why do you have a right to say otherwise. Remember, Al-Assad still has genuine support. In my personal opinion it is morally wrong for other people to jugde other people's opinions, that is true dictatorship, and that is basically what you proposed or so I interpret it. Your basically saying, because Syria is an authorian and muslim nation, then we have a right to go there and forcefully(if needed) to convert them to our values and beliefs. Correct me if I interpreted you wrong

As China needs Irans oil they would - as they have with Syria - protect them no matter what crimes they perpetrate domestically and internationally. And russia from a geopolitical standpoint would do the same to make sure that the gulf region did not align with the west.yes, Same goes with the west, the west is equally a bad ass here. Though, in this case I support more the East/Kofi Annan position, since they are proposing a more peaceful solution, despite their geopolitical motives.

That threat is the only real one...Nope, the west is equally a threat. Did you know that the US has introduced restriction on protests lately? Protests are a peacefully and democratic means of voicing opinions and has commited crack downs on it's protests. In larger scale than Russia for example. China is different in the way that they are openly non-democratic.

6) "Syria cannot be compared to Libya since the rebels are more splintered than those in Libya. The situation has escalated too far now, now we need a transition process, which actually Syria has started, with their recent referendum."

More splintered ? Not really: they all want to kill Assad, which seems reasonable enough all things considered. In that way they actually are similar to much of the opposition to Ghadaffi.
That by no means that they are coherent or aligned - merely that they are not MORE incoherent and unaligned than the libyan rebels were and are.In libya we had/have a stronger 'transitional coucil' early on, in Syria we have the Syrian Liberation Army, Free Syrian Army and so forth. FSA is as well splintered from within(similarily to Libya), but we have multiply organizations that claim to speak for all. While in Libya we had one, the NTC.

Actually I agree completely in your statement that the situation has gone too far. However your conclusion from that statement is completely irrational given the fact that this is the middleeast:
Too much blood have flown, and only the the blood of the dictator can wash away that. No amount of academic discourse or attempts of a consensus will change that. It will never ever happen: just take the example of Lebanon ...Well, I disagree, I do not support killing if there are other options. I think that killings should be the responsibility of free courts. Thus repeating my self, I support a more peacefull way, after that trying Al-Assad in court.

And what referendum are you refering to exactly ? uhm... don't you know, it was in the news all over. Take a look, on wikipedia, If you don't trust wikipedia, google it. It was wide news, or atleast the western news sources I read it from. It was called a first step by many.

7) "Btw, who are you to judge the if Iran is ruled by a "god-demented priest" or an "loved Ayatollah"
Ayatollah Khomeini was completely crazy and a menace not only to the world but to his own population as well. Period.uhm.. ok, care to motivate that, I have not seen any document giving him the diagnisis "crazy" or an article in that favour.
A man who believed that a girl becomes a women when she has her first period and thus could be married is by no definition normal or rational. Combined with his antics in the war with Iraq including using children as human bombs just cemented that fact! Again, your moral versus islamic moral. They probably think the same about you. We all have different values, who says one is right? We consider one to be an adult at the age of 18, some countries at 21 and some at 13. This is the problem between different religions and sciences, why would the teatching of Christianity or Islam be superior to the other? Where should you draw the bar from a science perspective? When the human is able to reproduce or psychically mature? Personally I agree with you, I don't agree with the ayatollah. But who am I to say he's wrong if he has support for his values?
I could state countless other facts: but they are there for anyone to read. nope, don't know what facts your referring to.
Thus I claim the right to state those facts by the fact that I am a living human being.
Cogito Ergo Sum.
The Shah was no better of course, but at least he did not use religion to claim infallability in the face of irrefutable facts.
I have NO issue with Islam as a religion in any way shape or form ! So I have to stress very strongly that this is NOT some religious war or similar for me.uhm, I don't belive you. The specific characteristics your criticising is common to Islam and not as common in the west.

However it IS for Ahmadinejad and his peers !
QED

" AND that the Lebanese people don't support Hezbollah, if the locals of these countries don't like their political leaders, then they should step up and take action"

With all due respect: Dont be childish and naive.
They tried just that and their leader was assasinated for his efforts - If you have a family then you will think twice about doing the same as he did when the consequence was so obvious. As was the lack of punishment for his murderers! If someone attacked my family, then I would probably escalate the situation via revenge etc, if I where an neutral by stander I would de-escalate, and I as the suffering party would want an neutral party to come between and solve it peacefully.
The world is not always black and white and not everything can be solved academically...Agreed.

9) "Btw, did you know that Hezbollah has significant support amongst the population and populate ~10% of their parliament seats?"
Thus roughly 90 % of the lebanese population does NOT support them per se - and yet Hezbollah are one of the if not the most powerful factor in Lebon. I rest my case. So Because our Christian Democrats here in Finland has less than 10% of the popular support, but still strong support amongs many christians. So therefore by your reasoning, I can go kill them, because they are so small, kill and label the bugs right?

10) "Just because they may be a minority dosen't mean their not entitled to their opinions."
Actually when that very loud and aggressive minority uses terror, murders etc. to facilitate their political agenda then thats EXACTLY what it means - just like it would be in any other civilized democracy! By the rule of law, organizations who live to destabalize the state and its democratically elected politicians, are illegal in every democratic nation. But its fortunately rare that they are actively pursued as that by its very nature would be to give in to the anti-democratic forces.One thing people allways miss is that for one part an action is terrorism and for another an revolution/uprising against an oppressor etc. Take your american revolution for example, there are many viewes of the same story. There were at the time a significant pro british part that saw it differently from an revolution in the sense we commonly know it today.

11) Teaparty Im neither conservative nor american - what has that got to do with anything? I dont agree with what the teaparty movement is doing. Amongst other things because it doesnt seem like they actually know what they want to do exactly as a coherent movement.ok, my sincere apologies , in my defense, to me, your 'rhetoric' sounds similar to theirs, with you calling for similar things many them do. Take for example the republican presidential candidates in the US, many calling for killing of assad, wars etc.

12) "If Hezbollah do something violent, then their internal security should deal with it, the West could of course, sell equipment, training etc. But I don't support an Invasion unless Hezbollah does something radical like an coup and kills foreigners etc."
IF ?
The internal security of Lebanon is in fact no match for hezbollah as Hezbollah have the full support of the syrians and thus Iranians and thus indirectly the chinese and russians...
And they have kílled foreigners AND staged coups ... so what is your point? Well that is shity form the part of Syria etc. Everyone one should support non intervention in other's affairs.


Again we are at an impasse:

I deeply respect your right to say and feel what you will, but it seems that the gap between what you and I think are too wide to be bridge.I concure, I respect your opinions as well and in fact enjoy long debates

Nevertheless its fun to try - and I will be looking forward to your counterpoint.

Have a nice day

[Hullu Hevonen]

A little add-on
http://rt.com/news/annan-deadline-syria-peace-075/

[nick-bang]

In The words of Senõr Terminator: "Ill be back"

I am off with the family to have a mini-holiday, but otherwise im completely swamped in my job. But I will respond to all of your claims and statements as soon as I am able.

In the meantime, then I would by way of a generic answer just point out a few facts to put my other statements in perspective:

1) I am neither american nor israeli, just as I am neither christian nor jewish. Also I dont have any hidden agendas including religious or geopolitical. Your answers implied as much without actually stating it. Just to be clear, I have no wish to establish any New World Order ... except when playing SR2020

2) I really truly am neither xenophobic, anti-moslem or prejudiced in general. As above your post implied it without actually stating it overtly. And I strongly reject the allegation. However I intensenly dislike those who for reasons unknown believe that they have the right to subtract from other peoples human and political democratic rights. Which happens to be Standard Operating Procedure in many of the regimes we discuss here - not least of which are the illegal iranian dictatorship. Illegal because no matter what course the iranian people choose for themselves , then Ahmadinejad and the current dominant faction of the mullahs are not what they wanted.
The massive fraud during the latest "election" and the following crackdown on those who actually thought it wasnt okay that the most conservative faction of the UNdemocratically elected mullahs, chose to overrule the result of the election (which would have led to Ahmedinejad being ousted), just proved that. Again.

3) I speak not only from the facts as I see and remember them, but also from the standpoint of a historian with a masters degree (which does not mean im infallible at all), as someone who have actually lived and travelled in the middle east and as someone who have been to war and being forced to fire weapons in anger.
This merely to put my statements in their proper context and perspective.

More to follow soon...

KInd Regards

[Hullu Hevonen]

Well, no stress

I have not claimed you to be Christian or Jewish or any religion. I admit I had an impression of you being American, I explain why in my replies above( and apologized for that). I see a strong similarity in some well known politicians that want to project their 'values' onto others, by armed force if necessary, or by other forcing measures. I don't think no one has this right without the sovereign countries own approval.

[fool]

The thing you have to recognise is that the moral supremacy of individual countries, or states, is itself arbitrary. Borders are not objective, and the will of a state that is dominant in a particular region is not itself morally correct by default. To judge it morally, you must refer to some other standard.