The Enemy of My Enemy

The Enemy of My Enemy

online.wsj.com

Being an Arab leader has its rewards: the suite at the Waldorf-Astoria during the United Nations General Assembly, travel in your own plane, plenty of cash, even job security—whether kings, sheiks or presidents, with or without elections, most serve for life.

But the advantages must seem dwarfed by the problems that face the Arab world this summer. The Shia in Iran seem to be building a bomb, Iran's ally Syria is taking over Lebanon (again), Yemen is collapsing (again), Egypt's President

(visit the link for the full news article)

An Israeli F-16I jet fighter.



George Mitchell, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so goes Arab foreign policy toward Israel and Iran.

The Arabs and Persians have been at odds against one another since when, the Battle of Al-Qadissiyah, having secured an Arab victory?

A nuclearized mullahcratic Iran is the last thing the Arab states want, and their long-hated enemy, Israel, is the one nation they reckon they can deal the threat from Iran.

I don't know how this Middle Eastern foreign policy would work out.

What if an IDF/AF pilot has to eject from his stricken aircraft and parachute onto Arab soil? How would Arabs react when they see a downed Israeli pilot? Would they rescue him, and treat him of his wounds, then hand him back to his comrades? Or would they kill him?

If they did the former, then their 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' policy has worked like a charm. If they did the latter, then they have backstabbed Israel and they would realize it was just a ploy to protect the Arabs all along.

What do you think?

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

In the regard of a crashed pilot, I suspect they will "take him into custody", and then use him as leverage against Israel in a political manner. Though it is, of course, possible they'll just hand him over.

But the term "enemy of my enemy" isn't really accurate, because many humans aren't rational, and hates the enemy of their enemy as well, too much to be able to join forces with him.

But, that doesn't prevent them from just leaning back and watching as two enemies wipe each other out. Once one of them is wiped out, the other too is weakened militarily, so it's a win/win-situation for the ones who do the watching, in this case the Arab nations.

reply to post by ironfalcon


Here we go...devolving again. Can we get past this foul chunk of hatred stuck in our throats like a piece of rotted meat?
Choke this putrid blockage from our esophageal canal so we can finally breathe loving, patient and tolerant humanity... toward our fellow man as well as the creatures and animals we share the planet with.

Be a superhuman.
Do our species justice.

Have no hatred.
Have no enemies.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Not having enemies isn't always up to you. Sometimes people like the infamous neocons decide to make you their enemy simply for not bowing to them. In those cases, you cannot and must not surrender without a fight. Until we rid the world of people like that, there cannot, ever, be world peace. In my opinion, of course.

Originally posted by David_Reale
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Not having enemies isn't always up to you. Sometimes people like the infamous neocons decide to make you their enemy simply for not bowing to them. In those cases, you cannot and must not surrender without a fight. Until we rid the world of people like that, there cannot, ever, be world peace. In my opinion, of course.

I can respect that. People who interrupt the peaceful, natural and beautiful flow of life should be sidelined for the remainder of the game or until they learn how to play nice and fair. Still hatred is a wasted emotion and usually does more damage to the initiator than to the subject. Usually, but not always. Think ptsd.

reply to post by David_Reale


peace walker is such a good game.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I agree with you, dude. Nobody should ever fight with hate in their heart. But sometimes, fight, we must, unfortunately.

reply to post by depth om


Agreed!! Though, I don't think there has been a single failed game in the MGS series. And Peace Walker really gave me the willies! Makes me want to create a real life MSF, and then move from Sweden to, oh, about 200 km's north of Galzburg, South Africa.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by David_Reale]

war is a living thing, greed is part of it, power is the absolute victory, and we humans are just vessels by which the war is kept alive.

there will never be peace until all human kind is killed even after we all die, something else will take our rightful place and continue

Originally posted by David_Reale
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

I agree with you, dude. Nobody should ever fight with hate in their heart.

reply to post by depth om

 

Agreed!! Though, I don't think there has been a single failed game in the MGS series. And Peace Walker really gave me the willies! Makes me want to create a real life MSF, and then move from Sweden to, oh, about 200 km's north of Galzburg, South Africa.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by David_Reale]

Dude,
Nobody should fight. Think teacher, class room, unruly student. Beating them will indicate to the other kids this sort of vindictive revenge behavior is OK.
Teacher gently guides troublemaker aside and tries to offer reasons for doing so and giving them a "time out."
Teacher shows no violence or hatred toward the troublemaker.

You solve the problem by pulling out the antagonist and leaving them alone where they can harm no one. You don't harm them. You let them sit to see the error of their ways. This is passive but just, and effective.
If problem persists, exclusion continues. Problem solved.

Dudette.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by David_Reale


Yea, The world is Metal Gear Solid for the most part, MGS2 was my favorite in the series, with AI controlling the rate of change of information and storing/deleting/generating memes to control the publics actions.. crazy conspiracy rich storylines in all titles coupled with one of a kind gameplay that no other title series has been able to reproduce.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Sorry, my mistake, dudette.

Your method works fine in theory, in the class rooms, and on the streets, because the teacher and the police are in power. But in the case of reality on the political arena and the battlefield, the bullies are in power, in the White House for example. And when they step on the innocent to gain more power, the innocent cannot put them in time out. They must fight to defend themselves.

reply to post by depth om


It's a game series that any conspiracy theorist would thrive in playing.

Great article on the perspective of the Arab nations. I used it in my thread on Syria, where the U.S, and by proxy Israel, is now thinking of siccing the UN and IAEA on Syria as they did on Iran and as they are meddling with with Jordan's attempts in nuclear development.

On the plus side, it's long past time for the Arab leaders to unite. If they do this, chances are will go a long way to fighting U.S. interventionalism and the further loss of life there. In addition, it might even finally get us a solution with the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

This story also goes along with this: Arab majority believes nuclear Iran helps Mideast. In this poll, it also says that the Arab world is highly disappointed and has lost faith in Obama (the gist of other headlines given to the poll).

The Arab nations are seeing the danger in a nuclearly armed Israel when none of them have nukes, so they really don't take issue with teaming up with their enemy (Iran) to protect them against their other enemy (Israel).

A nuclearly armed Iran would level the playing field both defensively (MAD is better than nothing) and economically. Saudi Arabia is rumored to have nukes, but no one knows for sure if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me.

In geopolitics enemies only exist until there is a mutual or common benefit or need, and allies only exist until there isn't a a mutual or common benefit or need.


[edit on 8/7/2010 by ~Lucidity]

If enough like minded people engaged in a critical shift and did not repay violence with violence, the world would change.
We would have peace with occasional outbursts of oppression, easily spotted in the calm and subdued by an active majority.

Violence only perpetuates a cycle of violence and eventually you cannot tell the good guys from the bad. With violence your mistakes are permanent and indelible. With peace you can modify, improve. No harm is done.

It only seems like we need to fight because we do not have enough people on this side to reverse an established and popular trend of intolerance and fear. Blood lust and domination urges should be a capital offense and the perpetrators educated and if this is impossible, removed from the playing field. Not hurt. Removed. Isolated.

You need not agree, I hate the sight of blood. My interpretation and thoughts about what is needed here are just that. Interpretations, thoughts. They vary. I have a little blood lust at times myself. I fight it down. Recognize it's capacity to backfire and cause injury. There are noble battles but in the scheme of our life on this earth I think these battles and victories should be getting fewer and farther between as we reach some middle ground of quiet.

Fewer. And farther between... until there is no oppression, but a functioning, peaceful society.

Why is this not so already?
We certainly have been around the block and back.
I can only surmise it is the way we are thinking. Like warriors and not like lovers. We have a predisposition love and peace is for women, children, sissies and songwriters.
War gets a whole lot of attention, makes the most noise, gets all the medals.
It is our coliseum, our entertainment in a twisted and sick way. A road accident we cannot take our eyes off of. Wreckage we cannot walk away from.

Should not be this hard to live here.

We are with rare exception born loving, capable and smart. When is that accepting nature beaten out of us? It varies.

We are only different externally and in custom. These "differences" usually based on ignorance and misunderstanding (almost every violence is aggravated) have festered to breed hatred and division that is hard to uproot.
This one thing alone, our external and customary differences, should not be so insurmountable. These, should not tear humanity apart.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Sure. Nice wish, but I think some egos are too large to allow this to happen. No one wants to "lose." And if there's profit involved? Greed? And if hegemony is at stake? We're sunk.

The Middle East was a prime target for the colonizers because they didn't hang together. This new attitude is a positive step if it happens. Baby steps.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I know. It is a sticking point.
Ever notice we are on the same threads a lot?