BF2S Forums Is there any point in trying to make peace in the Middle East?

To be honest, there isn't really much point. That part of the world is at a different phase of political development from the rest of us (several hundred years behind us). They have a lot to do to evolve, it could take hundreds more years, forcing matters only hinders this process of political evolution. You can't force people to play nice if they don't want to: the situation there will run its course and an equilibrium between the various parties will eventually be reached - exactly the same way in which WWI and WWII had to be fought before Europe took its current peaceful and co-operative form.

Yes, but not for oil

Is there a point in making peace?  Is there a point in having peace ANYWHERE in the world....if not then why the hell do we even have politics....ngos....igos.....treaties......conventions....that sort of thing. Kinda wishy washy nation state BS that perpetuates wars eh?

Peace is achieved via perpetual states of war are much better. It bring about peace in a much nicer faster fashion. Via bombs -- unless you come to the realization that peace in the Middle East was never intended hence the drawn out peace processes and invasions in this region. Obviously peace is an after thought required to justify the war itself. pfft peace.

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-04-14 11:20:55)

ATG wrote:

No, lets let them all have nukes and sort it out for themselves.  ( rollseyes )

The era of letting regional squabbles play themselves out is over.

The reason is spelled W-M-D.

You really don't get the concept of deterrency do you?

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

No, lets let them all have nukes and sort it out for themselves.  ( rollseyes )

The era of letting regional squabbles play themselves out is over.

The reason is spelled W-M-D.

You really don't get the concept of deterrency do you?

Oh I do;

If Iran proceeds on its nuclear program, wer will deter them with a few heavy bombing sorties.

It's about cost/benefit.

The cost of allowing the Imams to have nukes is just too high.


Your point is not lost on me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan ushered in 50 years without major world conflict.

The difference is, the brain dead drooling mullahs WANT mutually assured destruction.
It just isn't worth the cost.

dark110 wrote:

OIL


but when its all gone, and i drive a car that runs on hydrogen,  I say fuck em

QFT +1

ATG wrote:

Oh I do;

If Iran proceeds on its nuclear program, wer will deter them with a few heavy bombing sorties.

It's about cost/benefit.

The cost of allowing the Imams to have nukes is just too high.


Your point is not lost on me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan ushered in 50 years without major world conflict.

The difference is, the brain dead drooling mullahs WANT mutually assured destruction.
It just isn't worth the cost.

They couldn't possibly manage mutually assued destruction. They could only manage one hit on some target before being baked into a giant sheet of glass with a steady rain of nuclear missiles. No Iranian figurehead is stupid enough to think he could mutually assure destruction. As such, your logic in this instance fails. Not to mention the fact that Iranians are just like Americans, they just wanna work, get paid and have a normal life: they ain't aliens you know.

Also: the time Israel struck Iraq pretty much nailed any surprise element USA could now hope to have. I'm sure the Iranians are well prepared.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-14 12:28:15)

penguin.killer wrote:

lets grab their oil and turn the place into a quarantina area with a huge cement wall.

You mean like this one:

Their will never be peace.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

No point. They'll always be at each other's throats.

The alternative to trying to pacify them tostabilise the oil price lies in the sugarcane fields of South America. Use ethanol instead of oil, and the sheikhs will go out of business.
Serve 'em right for being unspellable.

lold