The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Zeep-Eeep on July 26, 2006, 06:06:08 pm



Title: War in the middle east
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on July 26, 2006, 06:06:08 pm
I find it odd there isn't a topic for this yet. As I understand it, Isreal and
Lebennon are shooting at each other. While this is alway a high-tension area,
it seems to have flared up in a nasty way.
Anyone from that area availible for comment? Perhaps
someone who can give an un-mediaed version of
what's going on?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 26, 2006, 07:27:38 pm
well i'm israeli, and i may be a bit biased but i dont think that i am that much as to cloud my judgement.

ill give you the general feeling that's going on here lately:
that we are being terrorized and murdered, usually treated unfairly on the world media and generally misunderstood and misinterpreted. and i for one am beginning to get the feeling that peace is just an illusion.

all that set aside the latest conflict is a case of being fed up with Nassrala jibing and provocating us and most of us are feeling: "okay we are being bombed and a quarter of the country is in bomb-shelters but we are willing to pay the price as long as you (the IDF) remove that constant threat over our heads from the northern border."

oh and BTW Lebannon isn't shooting at us but the Hizballah. it's an important distinction to make since they are a terrorist organization rather than a legitimate country.

i hope that was clear version..


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Lance_Vader on July 26, 2006, 08:23:36 pm
I'm really disappointed with the Palestinians.  You'd think after so long they'd realize that the surrounding arab nations are their real enemies, not the Israelis.  Those arab nations and their own leaders have seen the Palestinians as nothing more than pawns in their game, and care nothing for their losses, as long as they weaken the Israelis or take up some Israeli resources in their fights.  I'm rooting for the Palestinian people, and I want to see them get fed up with their own leaders using them like tools.

I'm also rooting for the Israelis, but I'm not as worried about them.  They have become such a military powerhouse that they will be wiped out before they let another nation subjugate them, and all their surrounding enemies don't have the firepower to do that.  That's why they lost the Gaza Strip.  Because of their OWN aggression.

It's a messy situation, and I don't think there's enough people who genuinely want to be at peace with the Israelis.  Likely they'll be fighting 'til doomsday.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 26, 2006, 09:57:12 pm
Anyone from that area availible for comment? Perhaps
someone who can give an un-mediaed version of
what's going on?

Meh, pointlenss question.
Ask an Isreali what he thinks about it and he'll say "They're shooting at us, we're only defending ourselves".
Ask a Lebanease guy (or a Palestinian, or whoever) and he'll say "They're shooting at us, we're only defending ourselves"..

The Middle East is a silly place, I doubt even the people dying and killing have any idea what's the point of this conflict.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on July 27, 2006, 12:29:40 am
Whether they have a good "big picture" view of the situation
I trust their views over the much-filtered North American media.
The middle east has been a boiling pot for some time, especially
the past 50 years. It's very unfortunate that there are so many people
who are fighting. Peace may be possible, but I think a
lot of changes, plaing-field leveling changes, must
be made first.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: JonoPorter on July 27, 2006, 12:53:59 am
The reason why Israel left Lebanon is because there is the UN Resolution 1559 that says that Israel should vacate Lebanon and Hezbollah should disarm. Well Israel left Lebanon and Hezbollah didn’t disarm and the UN did nothing to enforce the resolution. Actually Hezbollah did the opposite and went on the offensive by kidnapping Israeli solders (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2006Jul12/0,4675,LebanonIsraelClash,00.html) and launching rocket attacks on Israeli towns. To make it worse there is substantial evidence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13964258/) that Hezbollah is being supplied by Iran and Syria. The attacks on Lebanon were aimed (at least originally) at getting the kidnapped solders back. This is evidenced by them taking out all means of travel out of the area they thought the solders were in, by taking out all the bridges airports and ports.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Shiver on July 27, 2006, 01:26:07 am
Yeah, that region is going to be at war on and off until the end of time. The only solution that leads to any foreseeable end in sight would be if Israel migrated its people right out there. Granted that many countries have a history of purging jews for no good reason, but America does not. Nor does Canada. Australia is a nice place to live as well. Don't give me that "it's been their land for thousands of years" shtick - I know that already. However, the Israelis are keeping themselves in a precarious position for as long as they stay in an area surrounded entirely by those lovable, wacky Muslims.

Oh hell, of course no one's going to listen to an idea that might actually get something done. Enjoy my $0.02 anyway.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Baltar on July 27, 2006, 01:37:39 am
My opinion of this sounds like it is shared by most of the rest of the world: Israel was correct to have responded to this, but the response, as usual, seems a bit heavy handed.  I can understand shutting down travel out of the country (sure as hell wouldn't want those soldiers getting moved to Syria) and attempting to destroy Hezbollah 'units' in the south, but the collateral damage seems rather wanton.  Why hit the suburbs of Beirut, for instance?  For trying to single out Hezbollah, they seem to be doing pretty well on the whole infrastructure of the country.

I'm disappointed (though not suprised) by our (me being in the US) administration's slowness to react.  I'm also ashamed that the Democrats have backed the administration 100% on this.  Grow some balls please.  I also have to wonder what this unqualified support for Israel's activities means for our occupation in Iraq...

One question for the class:  I've been hearing alot about the dangers of a wider war.  Could anyone illustrate exactly what sequence(s) of events would broaden the scope of this conflict?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 27, 2006, 02:25:33 am
Here's my 2 cents, I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings, I like you all :)

I think that Israel uses excessive force. I don't like how it deals with democratically elected governments (Gaza, Lebanon). Namely, by assassinating Hamas + Hezbolla leaders, taking Hamas leaders prisoner, and killing some of their civilian supporters. Really, is there no other way, even if you don't like those people ? This way you're pissing off the people who elected them.

I also think that Hezbolla is a organization that should not exist, but unfortunately it does. I don't believe that bombing the crap out of them is going to make much of a difference, cause if Lebanon can be rebuilt, so can Hezbolla rebuild itself.  At best, Israel buys itself some time. With Lebanon economically crippled, it won't be able to reserve much money to acquire weapons for the next 20 years to come. I think that, if Israel would wait for those 20 years, and not bomb Lebanon, the country would slowly have become more peaceful anyway, cause peace and prosperity erodes away such organizations.

I also don't understand why the Palestinians had elected Hamas, because they live in a situation where they are largely dependent on Israel, whether they like it or not. I suppose it was a protest vote against Israeli dominance in the region, rather than an intentional vote fr war ... I think at least.

I also think that Israel's position in the middle east is weaker than it used to be, if only because of increased population in the neighbouring countries compared to 30 or even 50 years ago. Also, heavy dependency on middle-eastern oil lead to world-wide economic backlashes because of this "war", or "incursion", which makes this move of Israel irresponsible in economic sense. Thus, politically and strategically it's in a weaker position. Although ... on the other hand it does have nuclear bombs.

I also think that this use of excessive force gives a lot of palestinians, lebanese and arabs in neighbouring states a sense of vulnerability - and on the longer term, this might lead to increased military spending, and perhaps also increased terrorist activity, so that the arabs can show Israel in turn that their opinion also counts. Maybe they extend this towards the US too, cause the US support Israeli actions. I'm afraid this might happen and lead to a (slight) worsening of long-term instability. I doubt it'll lead to a regional war, though, the killing and inflicted damages aren't high enough to warrant that yet, I think (although that's in the eye of the beholder)..

Finally, I think it's stupid that the "international community" has to pay for the damages done by Israel. Why should my tax-money be used for paying for their (Hezbollah + Israel) inability to deal with problems like responsible people ?! It's no peanuts, it's about billions of euros.

Btw., I am also repeatedly amazed by the (imo) simplistic views that israeli and US leaders expose for all the world to see. But, they have the big guns, so they can afford to be blunt and ignore the more moderate voices. I consider myself lucky that I live in a peaceful country. On the other hand, I also repeatedly remind myself that US actions in WW2 were very cool (most of them anyway). Also, Israel is a small country, surrounded by countries and populations that have a generally hostile attitude to its existence, even after all those years - I find it hard to imagine how it is to live in such a situation, maybe I'd do the same. Who knows, perhaps all of this will work out on the longer run, but sofar I'm pretty sceptical.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Baltar on July 27, 2006, 03:45:25 am
...
Finally, I think it's stupid that the "international community" has to pay for the damages done by Israel. Why should my tax-money be used for paying for their (Hezbollah + Israel) inability to deal with problems like responsible people ?! It's no peanuts, it's about billions of euros.

Haha!  Funny you should mention this.  I've long wondered why my tax money is going to Israel.  I hope noone gets too upset with me, but I have to say this:

*clears throat*

The formation of Israel is our worst foreign policy decision of the 20th Century.

It is a  distabilizing force in the region (as recent events have shown us), and I fail to see what benefit its presence ever offered us.  We continue to hurl guns and money at the country (and now precision bombs at an accelerated pace) despite the fact that it runs counter to our other interests in the region.  I find it odd that it is the pinnacle of 'freedom' in the area yet we have to bankroll its very existence.  And here I am in the 'land of the free' where the reigning party emphasizes self reliance and pulling one's self up by their bootstraps, so to speak (if that can still be said to be the case with the GOP, but perhaps that is another thread ;)).

Not to mention that as an American it doesn't sit very well with me that the country basically exists solely because of a single ethnic group.  That just seems to contradict my democratic sensibilities of freedom and multiculturalism.  And yeah, some are going to come back and say Israel has Christians, Muslims, Druze, etc...but lets be honest.  The Star of David sitting right in the middle of the flag, and of course the founding purpose was to have a 'Jewish homeland'..  Seems like a clear endorsement to me.  Alright I'm getting pretty far astray here...sorry.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Arne on July 27, 2006, 05:17:30 am
One question for the class:  I've been hearing alot about the dangers of a wider war.  Could anyone illustrate exactly what sequence(s) of events would broaden the scope of this conflict?

Here's a scenario. The Danes start making claims for Skåne (a part of Sweden we used to fight about all the time) by using satirical cartoons. Then the Norwegians taunts us with more 'Sweden-Jokes' than usual. It culminates with a Finnish sauna cult trying to force us to spend 1hr a day in the sauna, aswell as running around nude in the middle of the winter. This is the last drop, and our war insticts comes to life after having been supressed for nearly 200 years.

This would be no stranger to me than the situation down in the middle east.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: JonoPorter on July 27, 2006, 06:51:15 am
One question for the class:  I've been hearing alot about the dangers of a wider war.  Could anyone illustrate exactly what sequence(s) of events would broaden the scope of this conflict?

Here are some scenarios that some may fear but I really don’t.

Iran finally develops a nuke then gives it to Hezbollah for use against Israel.  The nuke goes off in Israel and they respond in kind against Syria and Iran and suddenly a large portion of the world’s oil supply is radioactive.

Syria and Iran decide to send “piece keeping” forces to Lebanon at the same time Egypt decides to send “piece keeping” forces to the Gaza Strip. They end up to being staging grounds for an outright assault on Israel. Israel being outnumbered decides to use nukes to even the odds. The unfounded fear of all oil in the Middle East being radioactive causes a boycott of all the oil from the Middle East causing massive oil shortages. 

Aliens (as in outer space) see the Middle East in turmoil and decided to start selling advance weapons to the Middle East to turn a profit. Unfortunately the Aliens sell them Anti-Matter weapons. The weapons go off and then the third planet from the sun is mars.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 27, 2006, 10:36:37 am
Shiver:
to tell you the truth  - sometimes it sounds really tempting to move to another country and some israelis do so from time to time. however you do have to keep one thing in mind: the holocaust. yeah, i know, it has been discussed to death but the simple fact is that after a people go through the experience of being slaughtered in the millions with no help in sight you tend to trust only yourself and not depend on the charity of others which is what we basically are when wer'e a minority in some other country - in the end the population counts.

Baltar:
the reason we bomb beirut is the same reason the US bombed afganistahn - they knowingly harbour terrorists and allow them freedom of action - when the USSR stationed nukes in cuba wouldn't it have shared the blame if the USSR fired those missiles?

GeomanNL:
the hamas leaders in the gaza strip that are killed are those that our equivalent of the FBI have solid proof against them that they are about to commit a terrorist attack.

Baltar No. 2:
i for one see it more as a moral decision, and as for being a country based on a single ethnic group, well, see my answer to shiver, and basically, there isnt anywhere else we feel safe...

Everyone:
and finally, i think just about everyone in Israel REALLY wants peace (except for a few extremists - but they exist everywhere) and we are sick and tired of all this - we just want a normal life but you know what - we aren't getting any. we just get the feeling wev'e tried everything and nothing works.
Backing out of Lebannon and letting the Hizballah erode due to peacful tiding? done that, they only got 10 times stronger and kept harassing us.
Backing out of the Gaza strip and letting them deal with themselves?
done that, they only continued terrorizing us.
What more can we do? back out of israel altogether? not possible  - see my answer to shiver.
and here we are in this mess...


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: JonoPorter on July 27, 2006, 12:20:10 pm
I can’t really think of any real acceptable way to solve this situation. But I can think of plenty of unacceptable things Israel can do.

1. Detonate nukes in the upper atmosphere to have only the EMP hit the areas where the terrorists are positioned. This would permanently destroy all their electrical equipment. Making the terrorists unable to communicate or use GPS for positioning of the rockets.

2. Cripple the economies of the countries funding the terrorist, with strikes on power plants and information centers.

3. Set up pig farms in a perimeter around Israel.

4. Inform the terrorists that you have started to coat your bullets and missiles with pig fat.

5.  Declare a 10 mile dead mans land and kill everyone in it after a certain date, by setting up automated guns and mine fields.

I actually think 4 would be very effective and not that unacceptable. The rest would make the UN pass a resolution that would do nothing or just cause more harm then good.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 27, 2006, 01:49:50 pm
"the hamas leaders in the gaza strip that are killed are those that our equivalent of the FBI have solid proof against them that they are about to commit a terrorist attack."

Sure, but it's a democratically elected leader, one can't treat such a person as some average criminal and sentence him to death. While Israelis might find it a justified action, others at the receiving end could interpret that as an act of war. Therefore, imo, other methods should've been tried first, but alas, the current Israeli government wasn't elected for its diplomatic skills, was it ;)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 27, 2006, 03:00:44 pm
Geoman:
1) if Clinton would have commited a murder are you telling me that he wouldn't have (or at least should) got a  trial just like any other person? remeber a democratic leader is "first amongst equals."

2) isn't commiting a terrorist action while your party occupies the goverment considered as an act of war, if not worse?

3) ins't backing out of the gaza strip and letting the people who make  the terrorist attacks plans live longer an alternative method than killing them outright? and besides they are not killed  the minute they THINK of bombing , they are (figuratively speaking) the moment their finger is about to press the button.

4)just for your knowledge the present PM is much more diplomatic than the former Sharon


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 27, 2006, 04:36:59 pm
1) I happen to like Clinton. Let's instead take president Bush. Ultimately, he is responsible for a lot of deaths in the Middle East, by attacking Iraq (a few years ago), and this against the will of almost all of the rest of the civilized world. Your PM orders to level the southern suburbs of Beirut, not caring whether there are civilians living there, also against the will of almost all of the rest of the civilized world. Would you call those deaths wartime casualties, or are they the result of illegal actions ? This is just theoretical babble of course, noone will ever accuse Bush or Olmert of atrocities against humanity, but imo sometimes, there's a thin line between good and evil...

2) I suppose it is - but is Israel currently at war with the Palestine people ?

3) even if a leader is planning some kind of attack, that doesn't automatically mean that you kill him (at least, not while you're at peace) - cause that excludes any form of negotiation beforehand. Killing his aids who also do planning and preparation is fine with me, that has much less political consequence. Or perhaps I'm just being ignorant here ?

4) I think your new PM is worse than Sharon. His diplomatic response to a few kidnappings is war ...he is responsible for leveling of south Beirut and some violent incursions in Gaza - that's more than Sharon can claim to have done, isn't it ?

Btw., my major problem with current events is the scale on which destruction is taking place. I think it is absurd and I'm horrified when I watch the images on TV (also by the Hezbollah attacks btw., but unfortunately Israel steals the show).


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 27, 2006, 05:38:10 pm
1)actually, up until very lately most of the civilized world was saying, "do what you have to, but try to minimize the damage". in addition the area bombed is hizballah- city - the people there are part of a terrorist organization at war with israel - i think that disqualifies them as civilians.
and if you'll think abou it you'll see that the PM cannot afford to level south beirut wether civilians are present or not, i mean why else would we need precision bombs? certainly not to flatten south beirut - the reason we need them is to kill nassralla WITHOUT killing innocent civilians

2) no, wer'e at war with the hamas as a terrorist organization which happenes to be in control right now and whuch uses that control to further it's own intrests which go against those of the palestinian people such as continued terrorist attacks and distributing the charity funds which do arrive to their own people while they leave those that dont agree with their opinions to starve.

3) wer'e not talking about planning - were talking about a leader who is about to give an order to a suicide bomber (just like a USSR president which is about to press the big red button) - after which said bomber disappears off the map until his pieces suddenly appear throughout a bus or kidergarden or you name it. it's a far cry from planning...

4) there are two ways of looking at it :
1 - the hizballah practically rules south lebannon and therefore can be  treated as a country which its capital sits in a certain part of Beirut - which is the part that is being bombed as the capital of a country were at war with
2 - lebannon does rule south lebannon and therefore allows these attacks knowingly and therefore its capital is being bombed in retaliation

either way you look at we are bombing the right target...

and as for sharon not bombing south beirut, well, i have a pretty strong feeling (and i think that most israelis share it) that sharon would have acted much sooner and then we wouldn't have gotten to this stage while olmert (the current PM) was much more patient and tried diplomacy before resorting to force  -  dont forget that this didnt start with the kidnapping of the two soldiers
but went on for a long time beforehand with this being the last straw - i mean, we retreated from lebannon - so it should have been quiet, right? but hizballah along with syria and iran which are interested in creating diversions, had an interest in reigniting the fire.

in addition - your'e horrified by physical scale, but what about the time scale, imagine living in a city that has seen so many buses, cafes, restaraunts and weddings blowed up that it becomes emotionally dull...


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 27, 2006, 05:44:08 pm
Quote
usually treated unfairly on the world media and generally misunderstood and misinterpreted.

That might have something to do with the "accidental" multi-hour bombing campaign against that UN watch post. Honestly, that was not a very good global PR move, even if the UN is an imbalanced, unfair organization (which is what one might expect from an imbalanced unfair world.)


Quote
oh and BTW Lebannon isn't shooting at us but the Hizballah. it's an important distinction to make since they are a terrorist organization rather than a legitimate country.

I think there is a better distinction to make. Democratic, rich christian/sunni Lebanon is a sort of separate nation, to the north of Hezbollon. Yes, I think the poorer south considers Hezbollah to be their government- it administers social programs, military operations, and has the support of it people. It is also a satellite nation or Iran. By calling it a terrorist organization, you are only underestimating it, and that is never a wise assumption in war. After all, terrorism is the tactic of targeting civilians to bring about political change. A hostile nation can do much greater damage, and use much more lethal tactics than just terrorism. Likewise, you can not just remove Hezbollah as though it were a tumor, it has the support of its people.

But attacking peaceful, rich northern lebanese and their infrastructure was not a good call. Even though Hezbollah has some ties to the north, your fight was with the south, for the most part (that's where the rockets are.)


It may be too late now, but here is what I think Israel should have done, that would have put it in a stronger place.

1) Forget Beiruit and northern lebanon, it is not your enemy, and it is a modern place, heavily tied to other peaceful modern nations. It is also a city, so bombing it with everything and the kitchen sink creates a lot of collatoral damage, which wastes your global political browny points.

2) Begin targeting missiles launchers, when you can find them, with airstrikes. Do not bomb other targets.

3) Declare that since rocket attacks are being fired on your civillians, you will push 1-5 miles into lebanon, everyday, from the med to the syrian border. Civillans in your way during this push will be removed completely unharmed from their homes, which will then be bulldozed. Every mile you take is forever Israel's, you will never, ever give it back. The only thing that can stop the invasion is a total cease fire of rocket attacks. This is important because your air strikes alone will never defeat the missile threat.

So either Hezbollah must stop firing, Northern Lebanon must send in troops to dismantle the rockets, or the UN must send a force in to stop the rocket attacks. If they don't, you will soon have a large enough buffer zone, that rockets can no longer land on the cities of core israel (what was originally established as israel, not occupied territoties or such.) If they send out longer ranged missiles, you can push further into the Hezbollon, until Haifa is safe again.

4) Strongly recommend to the northern Lebanese, that they continue to show apathy towards their southern countrymen by not allowing them to hide in their section of the country. If the Hezbollonians run out of room and become refugees, recommend that Iran take them in, since it is now their mess.

5) Give the land that you've taken to the families of those who were killed in the rocket attacks (perhaps they can lease it to israeli farmers with a flare for the dangerous.) However, if anyone fires ordinance at these lands, the response will ONLY be against the ordinance launchers, this is a buffer zone (and therefore a hazardous place.) But outsiders cannot invade it, that unravels the whole point of a buffer zone, because they can then set up new rocket launchers here, and start firing on Haifa again.


So if a strategy like this was used, Israel  would be a bigger, safer place, and many hundreds of Lebanese cilivians would still be alive. Perhaps Northern Lebanon or the UN would be occupying Hezbollon for you. Northern Lebanon now sits next to a rich democratic nation like themselves. Everybody wins as much as is possible in a conflict like this.


Quote
One question for the class:  I've been hearing alot about the dangers of a wider war.  Could anyone illustrate exactly what sequence(s) of events would broaden the scope of this conflict?

Nope, the cold war is over, folks. There just aren't enough nuke wielding nations involved right now. Iran won't want to get too involved until they have nukes, I don't think. That would just be crazy.


Quote
And here I am in the 'land of the free' where the reigning party emphasizes self reliance and pulling one's self up by their bootstraps, so to speak (if that can still be said to be the case with the GOP, but perhaps that is another thread ).

Those are Conservatives. Neo-Cons are more like "money, money, money, money, money, money, money."


Quote
Sure, but it's a democratically elected leader, one can't treat such a person as some average criminal and sentence him to death. While Israelis might find it a justified action, others at the receiving end could interpret that as an act of war. Therefore, imo, other methods should've been tried first, but alas, the current Israeli government wasn't elected for its diplomatic skills, was it

You are right in that this taking out of hostile political leaders in other nations is not a police action, but nor is it out of the question. A human is a human, you can't give someone extra credit just for popularity. However, attacking these leaders out of the blue, while they are in crowded areas, with big bombs, could easily be considered an act of war, because you have blown away these civilians in another nation, during peace time.


Quote
there's a thin line between good and evil...

The line is as thick or as thin as an individual makes it. Good and Evil do not contain universal moral definitions, nor are they entirely accepted as even existing.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Lance_Vader on July 27, 2006, 06:12:13 pm
The weapons go off and then the third planet from the sun is mars.
Not gonna happen.  As fun as it would be to destroy the earth, (http://qntm.org/destroy) this would be very difficult.  The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.  Don't think it could be blown up with less than 1-2 trillion tons of anti-matter.

You're much more likely to destroy the earth by hurling it into the sun, or ripping it apart with tidal forces.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: NECRO-99 on July 27, 2006, 09:23:01 pm
No one likes my idea about how the Middle East conflict should be resolved, but I'll put it here anyway.

Everyone, everyone in the international community should ignore the conflict for a month. Let Israel and Hezbollah duke it out, the only restritction being conventional weaponry must be used (no NBC stuff). I'm sure, in that time, one would smash the other into absolute oblivion. After the month is up, we look at them again and see the results.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 27, 2006, 10:33:29 pm
Everyone, everyone in the international community should ignore the conflict for a month. Let Israel and Hezbollah duke it out, the only restritction being conventional weaponry must be used (no NBC stuff).

Israeli General: But Conan O'Brian is our best weapon!

Sorry, couldn't resist ;)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 27, 2006, 10:57:47 pm
DS:
please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one... you might as well say the eight canadians were killed on purpose.
dont you think you should give at least some credit to israeli commanders? i mean, what moron would bomb a neutral station? as for being multi-hour, that depends on who you believe - the IDF said hizballah shot a volley of rockets that landed near the station while the UN say it was israeli bombshells - and in any case it is a war zone so strays are bound to happen.

you got right to the root of the problem:
"Democratic, rich christian/sunni Lebanon is a sort of  separate nation..."
its very convenient for the north to ignore the south when they need to such as when the hizballah attacks us but herein lies the problem. the hizballah is in the gray area between a goverment and an organization which it finds very comfortable. either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it. there is no in between here. in not taking action against the hizballah they allow the continued attacks and therefore are enemies too. in addition they are not attacked directly but their comfort is, such as electricity and all the niceties of life which is done to present them with two options - "your'e either with us or with them".

as for the south - first and foremost hizballah's main target is dictated by syria and iran which hand over the money that counts - a continuing diversion through terrorism (which i define as any kind of attack they pull off). the fact that they run social programs is dictated by the need to get local support so they can stage guerilla attacks. and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without.

2) as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place!

3) same reason why not to as 2) with the addition that the UN will cry to high heaven and i think you know as well that will never be the end  of it.

4) strongly recommending hasn't helped so now it's gone on to physically "recommending".

Necro-99:
that would have been best but i do think your'e forgetting one thing: this was never israel vs. hizballah but israel vs. hizballah with syria and iran in the shadows constantly supplying hizabllah. without them it wouldn't have the money needed to "persuade" the locals, buy weapons and train and all this would have ended a long time ago.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 27, 2006, 11:30:14 pm
"imagine living in a city that has seen so many buses, cafes, restaraunts and weddings blowed up that it becomes emotionally dull... "

I can't imagine this and frankly speaking, I don't want to try either, thank you.

1)
"actually, up until very lately most of the civilized world was saying, "do what you have to, but try to minimize the damage". in addition the area bombed is hizballah- city - the people there are part of a terrorist organization at war with israel - i think that disqualifies them as civilians"

Uhm... that would discount the entire Israeli population from being civilian either, cause they back the army ?! Are victims of suicide bombs military casualties in a war against terror ?

2)
"no, wer'e at war with the hamas as a terrorist organization which happenes to be in control right now and whuch uses that control to further it's own intrests which go against those of the palestinian people such as continued terrorist attacks and distributing the charity funds which do arrive to their own people while they leave those that dont agree with their opinions to starve."

It's a nasty situation, yes, but Hamas is not just a terrorist organisation - it's also the government. This means that you can't keep treating it as if it's still some underground organization. Or well, you can if you want to, but the implications are more severe. It means that you're at war with the Palestinians, not just Hamas and its followers.

3)
"wer'e not talking about planning - were talking about a leader who is about to give an order to a suicide bomber (just like a USSR president which is about to press the big red button) - after which said bomber disappears off the map until his pieces suddenly appear throughout a bus or kidergarden or you name it. it's a far cry from planning..."

I'm no expert,but to me it would seem that there's someone who recruited the person, there's someone who made the bombs, there's someone who picks targets, someone who makes fake ID's, someone who tapes statements, someone who pays the suicide-bombers'  family, someone who takes care of finances, someone who takes care of shopping for materials used. All of this is organized in fairly much detail, and requires a lot of planning. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is just one suicidal volunteer and one leader.

4)
"there are two ways of looking at it :
1 - the hizballah practically rules south lebannon and therefore can be  treated as a country which its capital sits in a certain part of Beirut - which is the part that is being bombed as the capital of a country were at war with
2 - lebannon does rule south lebannon and therefore allows these attacks knowingly and therefore its capital is being bombed in retaliation"

Did Israel officially declare war on Lebanon ?
I thought Israel only wanted to do an "incursion", but I suppose I was wrong. I never heard a declaration of war, except perhaps that tiresome excuse of "war on terror" which is ill-defined and is used as an excuse to all kinds of non-democratic things.
Indeed, it looks like it is a real war, that affects the whole of lebanon.


"but went on for a long time beforehand with this being the last straw - i mean, we retreated from lebannon - so it should have been quiet, right? but hizballah along with syria and iran which are interested in creating diversions, had an interest in reigniting the fire."

You have a point there, but I can't help but think that a more moderate government would've been more patient with events as they unfolded.


"please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one"

I agree with you, nasty things can happen in the heat of war and can't always be prevented by the leaders.
A similar thing happened about 10 years ago, though, so you can't really blame the UN for complaining about it.

"either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it. there is no in between here. in not taking action against the hizballah they allow the continued attacks and therefore are enemies too."

It is such a small country, if you split it, nothing is left of it.

"first and foremost hizballah's main target is dictated by syria and iran which hand over the money that counts - a continuing diversion through terrorism (which i define as any kind of attack they pull off)."

I doubt Iran dictates Hezbollah actions.
Also note that Israel started an all-out war, not Hezbollah, not even Iran.

" the fact that they run social programs is dictated by the need to get local support so they can stage guerilla attacks. and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without."

Uhm... terrorists running social programs ?

"as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place"

Why destroy all the launchers ? They can buy new ones, and Israel can only get a temporary feeling of security this way. This can only be a fake victory.

"israel vs. hizballah with syria and iran in the shadows constantly supplying hizabllah. without them it wouldn't have the money needed to "persuade" the locals, buy weapons and train and all this would have ended a long time ago."

I doubt it's this simple. Perhaps, Syria is just trying to protect its own interests in lebanon, and armed hezbollah in case israel would ever plan an invasion (like it's doing at the moment) to change the balance of power ?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2006, 12:15:03 am
Quote
please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one... you might as well say the eight canadians were killed on purpose.

I don't think they were killed purposely. But, I seem to recall a similar incident happening to a usa spy ship that was monitoring a previous conflict between israel and neighboring nations (was it the liberty?) They too tryed to signal that they were friendlies, flying the US flag and such, but were not able to turn away the attackers. This is not to be confused with the incident where one of our spy ships was attacked by Iraq (under saddam) back when it was supposed to be an ally of ours. Needless to say, being aboard a US spy ship off the middle east must be a very exciting job. :o

But anyway, in war, regardless of the nations involved, I think it is all about the tactics and strategies (and politics, to some point.) I think a lot of nations and peoples distrust the UN to some extent, and maybe don't think they have the right to get involved in the affairs of all the smaller nations (obviously, the UN is nowhere to be found when a powerful nation like China is torturing political prisoners, so its idea of justice seems highly political.)


Quote
either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it.

They are not strong enough to. Maybe if your nation sold them some better arms at a good price they might though. This is an old US strategy, back the side you like by giving them weapons, and have them keep the rest under control using the force of arms you gave them. Of course, sometimes it backfires and we end up fighting our own weapons.


Quote
in addition they are not attacked directly but their comfort is, such as electricity and all the niceties of life which is done to present them with two options - "your'e either with us or with them".

I know a few hundred lebanese have been killed, but the question would be how many are christian or sunni. If you kill many of them, then there is a much greater likelihood they will go over "with them." If you kill someone that a man cares about, he'll seek vengeance on you directly, not Iran or Hezbollah for initiating this round of events.

But if you keep the northern lebanese apathetic, that is much better, because they can't do too much to help you militarily anyway, and attacking them only widens the conflict and lowers your nation's global status (sunni muslims get angry, some christians get upset, europeans who are close by to lebanon geographically get uneasy, etc.)


Quote
and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without.

They don't think that way, and killing civilians will make much of the world much angier. Think of it like this, everytime a rocket lands on haifa, israel gets a justification point. Everytime israel kills a civi or takes a mile of territory (permanently) it loses a point. You can spend more points bombing cities (which always creates civilian casaulties) and thereby motivating more to join Hezbollah, or you can take territory in the south, and push back those rockets until they can't hit anything but northern israeli farm fields. You'll never destroy those rockets in caves, but you can secure the area from which they are fired from (and the caves themselves.)


Quote
2) as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place!

Air strikes are only a minor way of combating the problem. It is also a way for the IDF to show its people that it is hitting back, while it slowly takes ground.


Quote
3) same reason why not to as 2) with the addition that the UN will cry to high heaven and i think you know as well that will never be the end  of it.

No, because those missiles have a limited range or else they'd be landing on Tel Aviv and southern Israel already. Taking ground will push back the attacks unless they start using longer ranged weapons, and then they'll be sacrificing more of their territory.

As for the UN, you remind them that you are not killing civilians, and your enemies are-- that your people are trading their lives for land and the eventually safety that comes with distance. Ask them which is more valuable, desert soil or human life? Progressive peoples must answer this question with "lives" and so that makes you the greater victims, who are courageously respecting human rights and defending yourselves, while your opponents try to target innocent women and children.

I think the UN would have less to complain about with that, than with the mounting lebanese casaulties of the current strategy.


Quote
4) strongly recommending hasn't helped so now it's gone on to physically "recommending".

Taking territory and bull dozing southern homes is plenty physical, it just doesn't do the same amount of economic damage, nor does it (if executed properly) kill civilians.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Baltar on July 28, 2006, 01:34:38 am
Shiver:
to tell you the truth  - sometimes it sounds really tempting to move to another country and some israelis do so from time to time. however you do have to keep one thing in mind: the holocaust. yeah, i know, it has been discussed to death but the simple fact is that after a people go through the experience of being slaughtered in the millions with no help in sight you tend to trust only yourself and not depend on the charity of others which is what we basically are when wer'e a minority in some other country - in the end the population counts.

Curious that you would view being a minority in such a light.  But more importantly I find the statement incredibly ironic.  You can't stand on your own, not there.  As I've already mentioned, you receive massive financial support from us.  Where would you be without it?

One other thing, as an agnostic viewing the rise of the religious right in my own country with much trepidation, am I entitled to my own special country?

Quote
Baltar:
the reason we bomb beirut is the same reason the US bombed afganistahn - they knowingly harbour terrorists and allow them freedom of action - when the USSR stationed nukes in cuba wouldn't it have shared the blame if the USSR fired those missiles?

I don't agree with this reasoning or analogy in the slightest.  You are talking about war without rules.  I think we (and you) can do better than that.

Quote
GeomanNL:
the hamas leaders in the gaza strip that are killed are those that our equivalent of the FBI have solid proof against them that they are about to commit a terrorist attack.

Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'.  Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'.  Suspected terrorist = dead.

Quote
Baltar No. 2:
i for one see it more as a moral decision, and as for being a country based on a single ethnic group, well, see my answer to shiver, and basically, there isnt anywhere else we feel safe...

And you feel safe there?? :P  Frankly, I have trouble seeing how it is a 'moral' decision.  Please explain this.  Moreover, why does this moral decision require my continued financial support?

Quote
What more can we do? back out of israel altogether? not possible  - see my answer to shiver.
and here we are in this mess...

Of course it is possible.  You just don't want to.  Not that I'm suggesting you should.

....

Another question for the class:  What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel?  IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries?  Not sure what the benefit is to either.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Censored on July 28, 2006, 04:22:15 am
(http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9407/image001ty8.jpg)
though the more accurate title should be "Muslim lands". still, the size ratios are correct.


Q: why was Beirut bombed?
A: Hizballa offices, silos, communication stations, etc. are located in Beirut. in fact, there's a subterranean bunker spanning few blocks under the city.

Q: why does Israel bomb cities and villages? they're killing the civilians!
A: note that Israel has warned entire areas by media broadcast or written warnings dropped from above, at least 36 hours before bombardment. most civilians have fled before the attack. some of the ones who remained were held with force by Hizballa members. I assure you some of the counted civilians deaths are Hizballa.

Q: why did Israel start targeting civilian buildings too (in the southern villages)?
A: the Hizballa knew Israel wouldn't attack civilian compounds. that's why they put all their rockets there. you should ask yourself, why would a civilian stay behind when all have fled, despite repeated notices from the IDF saying the area will be flattened soon? most chances this isn't really a civilian.

Q: is there a real war in that area?
A: 'war' is inherently used as a term to describe "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations". Hizballa isn't a nation, it doesn't have and air force, tanks, ships, or even the numbers to match an army. it's a terrorist group, which uses rockets and infantry cells. also, the IDF hasn't really flexed its muscle - a real war would encompass many more combat soldiers (I estimate hardly few thousands are currently active).

Q: did Israel retaliate due to its soldiers being kidnapped?
A: yes. but it's not only this; the Hizballa and Hamas are and have been lobbing rockets every now and again even before the kidnapping. these items are not on the news anywhere in the world except Israel - no one cares about a few rockets being launched here and there around the middle east. but when the conflict heatens - then it's "news-worthy". in the past two weeks the Hizballa have lobbed about 2,500 rockets. you can calculate it per day.

Q: why did Israel "invade" the southern villages?
A: airstrikes are not enough. the terrorists hide during the bombardment, whereafter they launch rockets and hurry back to hiding. they hide in the southern villages, which are as close as a mile (couple kilometers) from the Israeli border and Israeli settlements. this proximity of hostile infantry and rocket launchers cannot be tolerated, I'm sure anyone would agree. anyone else willing to do the dirty work?



General note: be careful when you read the 'wounded people' statistics. while it may mean the person has lost a hand, it most often means one had an anxiety attack.



Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on July 28, 2006, 05:57:32 am
No one likes my idea about how the Middle East conflict should be resolved, but I'll put it here anyway.

Everyone, everyone in the international community should ignore the conflict for a month. Let Israel and Hezbollah duke it out, the only restritction being conventional weaponry must be used (no NBC stuff). I'm sure, in that time, one would smash the other into absolute oblivion. After the month is up, we look at them again and see the results.

Couldn't put it better than myself. I doubt seeing any cease fire until hezbollah is disarmed or destroyed or both. The United States happens to be the only one backing Israel in this. Kofi Anan and the U.N want a cease fire that would give hezbollah the time to recover which is unacceptable. I think this is utter bullshit that the international community wants Israel to stop its "agression" in Lebanon.  If anybodys country was being attacked by a terrorist group, wouldn't you expect your government to go after it and any country that harbors it, by all means necessary?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2006, 06:09:08 am
Quote
Curious that you would view being a minority in such a light.

"Minority" is a rather pointless name, as everyone is a majority and a minority, it is just a matter of what the subject is. But, there is power and security in numbers.


Quote
As I've already mentioned, you receive massive financial support from us.  Where would you be without it?

A very good question, considering that someday in the near future, the US might not be the economic powerhouse that it is at the moment, and thus not able to send vast funds over seas.


Quote
One other thing, as an agnostic viewing the rise of the religious right in my own country with much trepidation, am I entitled to my own special country?

Hehe, well there's always China.


Quote
Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'.  Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'.  Suspected terrorist = dead.

Yes, that is a military operation and should be considered such. Though the british police did have an unfortunate sniper accident after the first bus bombings. They shot first and asked questions later. Bugger.


Quote
Another question for the class:  What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel?  IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries?  Not sure what the benefit is to either.

They are not trying to destroy Israel at the moment, if for no other reason, because they can't (they don't have nukes, israel does.) This is just a cold war to keep the US, Israel, and the UN distracted while Iran and North Korea build up their nuclear/missile programs.

There is a loose alliance that keeps all of us tied down in a 4 front war- Israel/Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea. With all of these hot spots, nobody can put any force into Syria, Iran or North Korea militarily, allowing the last two to construct nukes and the necessary delivery systems. High oil prices prevent boycotting of Iran's oil, because we need it so bad and instability in the region makes prices go up higher, thus giving them more research money and gives others in the oil business an excuse to push them up even higher than that, which weakens all our economies, weakening our strength even more. It is an excellent strategy.

So why would they want nukes? Because they are passports to the top caste of global society. A nuclear armed nation is a player, and cannot be touched by non-nuclear nations, and can only be touched by nuclear powers beyond missile range, or close by nuclear powers with a death wish. Furthermore, nuclear technology can be spread to other parts of the muslim and other worlds, thus better shielding Iran and Korea from any possible trouble from the rest of us. Hehe, just imagine them exporting the tech to sub-saharran africa, that'd keep the world busy for a while. ;)

So what would this mean for America? We'd lose control of much of the oil supply and oil prices. There's also a greater chance we could experience nuclear terrorism, unless we abandon the region in both military and foreign aid capacities. It is not our biggest trouble, but it is a concern to some extent. It sort of depends on whether or not you own an SUV. :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 28, 2006, 10:27:53 am
GeomanNL:

"I can't imagine this and frankly speaking, I don't want to try either, thank you."
i wouldn't to either, but before you can talk about being patient you need to try putting yourself in those shoes, otherwise its very easy to be patient from afar

1) i was talking about people who ARE part of the organization - say if all Haifa was occupied by military personnel

2) well for starters, half of the government which is unoccupied by the hamas is controlled by Abu-mazen which condones the terrorist attacks and is against them, so to begin with hamas is not the entire government, and if you choose to look at it as the whole government, you are right, the implications ARE more severe - the whole palestinian nation is waging a war against us - me, i would prefer to think there are logical palestinians left that do not want this and that the hamas is the one attacking us because otherwise we would be targeting the whole of the gaza strip instead of just said leaders with fingers on the button (BTW the term is "ticking bombs" - that should give you some idea about the urgency involved)
and i think you can see the first option would have been much easier

3) you're right, they do exist, the moment the leader is killed is after all preparations have been made and he is about to give the order.

4) that is the whole problem - hizballah (HZ for short) resides in the gray area between a nation and an organization and the whole purpose of this is to tell the lebanonians that this can't go on -" either you swallow them and then our fight is with you or you throw them up and then our fight is with them"

"It is such a small country, if you split it, nothing is left of it"

it is roughly the same size (twice as small) and yet israel is giving away huge tracts of land (or at least wanted to give up the whole west bank until all this flared up) and so if we are willing to do this for peace, shouldn't they?

"I doubt Iran dictates Hezbollah actions.
Also note that Israel started an all-out war, not Hezbollah, not even Iran."

they do, for example did you know that there are long range missiles stationed in north lebanon supplied by the iranians? and where do you think they get all the money for training, equipment, propaganda, organizational housing and so on and so forth? as for israel starting this like i said before HZ and through them iran have been trying for a long time to ignite the area - nassralla (NS) said that he planned this kidnapping or a long time - this is no spur of the moment thing - this is not something you do to keep the peace, this is a deliberate attempt to ignite the area, which serves the iranian interests.

"Uhm... terrorists running social programs ?"

yes, that's how you get he support of the local populace - you pay them to hide your weaponry, equipment and personnel,  you pay them when the children go to religious schools that only enlarge this cycle, you pay the families of suicide bombers - those "social" programs"

"Why destroy all the launchers ? They can buy new ones, and Israel can only get a temporary feeling of security this way. This can only be a fake victory"

not if the HZ is dismantled which is the main target.

"Perhaps, Syria is just trying to protect its own interests in lebanon, and armed hezbollah in case israel would ever plan an invasion (like it's doing at the moment) to change the balance of power ?"

what you're saying is a bit illogical,  i mean, syria supplied them with weapons so we won't attack them, then orders the HZ to attack us and thereby forcing us to retaliate, and we have to invade, which we didn't want in the first place ???

DS:

"They are not strong enough to"

then they should disown the south, which would make it a legitimate country with HZ in the government and then this would have been much simpler.

"If you kill someone that a man cares about, he'll seek vengeance on you directly, not Iran or Hezbollah for initiating this round of events"

the fact that that man chose to sit on the fence while the HZ continued terrorizing us is what started the whole mess - and if he can't see that it seems to me he doesn't want to see that.
in addition in beirut the houses that are bombed are those of the HZ, the rest are strays or facilities (which are bombed to send a message to the northerners).
a two way approach is required here:
1) bomb the HZ HQ in beirut  and take over the caves, which is what we are reluctantly doing now
2)send a message to the northerners to pick themselves up and take care of their country
the utmost is being done to prevent killing the northeners.

"As for the UN, you remind them that you are not killing civilians, and your enemies are-- that your people are trading their lives for land and the eventually safety that comes with distance. Ask them which is more valuable, desert soil or human life? Progressive peoples must answer this question with "lives" and so that makes you the greater victims, who are courageously respecting human rights and defending yourselves, while your opponents try to target innocent women and children."

should i remind what happened last time we tried that? evidentially there aren't enough progressive people in the UN because they couldn't understand this the last time. and besides not occupying territory as least gives you international justification to do what we are doing now.

Baltar:
interesting question and a good point. i do know one thing: we got this country of the ground (i'm talking about the first 15 years or so) pretty much by ourselves (financially speaking). where would we be today? much more worse off than we are now, that's for sure (don't get the impression that we are not immensely grateful BTW) but i DO think we would have survived. and as for demanding your own country as an agnostic, well, don't you think there's a small difference between being hounded at every corner for roughly 2000 years to finally end up being with your back to the wall and being slaughtered in the millions to having some uneasy feelings? and beside the point, if you think that as an agnostic the people who share your religion (or perhaps lack of it) stand an existential threat, then yes, i do.

"You are talking about war without rules"
first off, does terrorism adhere to any rules ?!?  and second, i wasn't talking about rules, i was talking about responsibility (at least that's where we started...), don't you agree that the responsibility would have been shared by cuba in that case?

"Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'.  Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'.  Suspected terrorist = dead."
those bystanders usually aren't random but an intentional human shield, i didn't say the FBI did anything like that i just brought up so you can understand the institution holding the proof
and we are NOT talking about "suspects" here, these are people with the hands on the buttons!
i would like to see a scenario where the FBI had solid proof that terrorists will commit the 9/11 attacks and that they had them on their sights with a missile and they didn't shoot. and don't tell me they could have apprehended on the way - cells don't work that way - the suicide bombers are usually like submarines -  they dive (or go to ground) and you won't see them until it's too late.

"And you feel safe there??   Frankly, I have trouble seeing how it is a 'moral' decision.  Please explain this.  Moreover, why does this moral decision require my continued financial support?"

wouldn't you feel safer in your home than in some one elses home?
you were regarding the decision to erect israel as a "foreign policy decision" - namely, politics. the way i see it  is: "these people aren't safe anywhere and won't be safe until they have a place they can call home."  and as for moral decisions requiring financial support - did you object having the US send financial support and food to all the countries damaged by the tsunami?

"Of course it is possible.  You just don't want to.  Not that I'm suggesting you should"

it's possible in the same way the US could have relocated to space in order to avoid the dangers of the cold war - that is -  possible but immensely unpractical.

"Another question for the class:  What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel?  IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries?  Not sure what the benefit is to either."

governments in a precarious  condition need to divert the minds of the masses from their current conditions and therefore ignite religious fire. in addition the international heat on them is growing and they want to divert it. in a single word - diversions, diversions and more diversions...


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 28, 2006, 11:47:59 am
Quote
"Uhm... terrorists running social programs ?"

yes, that's how you get he support of the local populace - you pay them to hide your weaponry, equipment and personnel,  you pay them when the children go to religious schools that only enlarge this cycle, you pay the families of suicide bombers - those "social" programs"

And then the ones who visit those schools, or who receive money, or who pay "taxes" to the organization, are terrorists too ?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 28, 2006, 01:14:40 pm
"And then the ones who visit those schools, or who receive money, or who pay "taxes" to the organization, are terrorists too ?"

no, but  they share the blame just like the hypothetical case with cuba - those who go to those schools are most likely to succumb to the religous brainwash and become sympathetic to the HZ and aid them, those who receive money - likewise, and as for those who pay "taxes" - i'm not exactly sure what you mean: people who pay extortion fee (i.e. unwillingly) or people who donate funds to the hizballah (willingly) ?

and if this goes on they eventually will turn into a soverign country and then it would be a country attacking.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 28, 2006, 01:25:13 pm
Taxes - both willingly and unwillingly.
I wonder if donating a small sum of money to e.g. Hizballah means that someone shouldn't complain that he or his family gets killed or injured in bombardments by e.g. Israel ?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 28, 2006, 05:17:56 pm
GeomanNL:
I've got to confess, i thought i knew english well, but i don't understand how did you fit e.g. TWICE in that sentence, as far as i know it translates to "for example" or "such as" and i don't really see those phrases fitting in your sentence...

that aside, would a contribution of a cent say that he doesn't have the right to complain?  i would  say of course not, it's a ridiculous sum that wouldn't buy anything, but on the other hand what if ten guys donated a cent each and  the bottle of ether used to drug the soldiers kidnapped cost 10 cents? so my answer is i don't know - i don't know if there IS a clear cut answer to this ???


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2006, 05:30:22 pm
Quote
then they should disown the south, which would make it a legitimate country with HZ in the government and then this would have been much simpler.

By limiting attacks only to the south, Israel would have stood a much better chance of getting them to do so. Attacking the country as a whole probably does a better job of uniting it.


Quote
should i remind what happened last time we tried that? evidentially there aren't enough progressive people in the UN because they couldn't understand this the last time. and besides not occupying territory as least gives you international justification to do what we are doing now.

No, it has never been done the way I outlined. I mean slowly take ground, leaving no one behind, but also killing no one. And you don't have international justification now, so there isn't much to lose (Israel would have been condemned for its actions if the US, as a member of the security council, had not vetoed the resolution or what not.) Basically, as I said before, both taking land or lives takes away moral credits or points in the eyes of the international community. So let's see what the advantages are to each:

Lives: Killing terrorists and leaders does not cost you any points, but it has never had any noticeable effect on your enemies, in the many, many decades of wars. No matter how careful you are, collatoral damage happens, when your opponents are hiding in cities. Collatoral damage motivates more to become terrorists, and causes you to lose points.

Land: Taking land bloodlessly costs you points, but because people don't see injured children on the TV sets, it costs less (perhaps alot less.) Land that is taken and cleared does not leave really any places to hide. This creates a frontier, which protects your inner territory from small rocket attacks. Large rockets, like SCUDs can be countered with Patriot Missile batteries and such, at least to some extent. Note however, that you cannot build buffer zones to protect settled areas that were never part of the original Israel from the 1940's. Any Israelis who live in the cleared lands must come in small numbers (no cities, they are targets) and must understand that there is a certain level of risk that comes with being out there, near the frontier.

There is benefit for Israel in the taking of Land, there is no benefit in the taking of Lives, be they terrorist or otherwise.

With palestine, you took a lot of land, left the entire populace there under occupation, and every so often send military expeditions in that end up killing civilians. This costs you moral points on the global scale, and creates more enemies on a local scale.


Quote
and as for demanding your own country as an agnostic, well, don't you think there's a small difference between being hounded at every corner for roughly 2000 years to finally end up being with your back to the wall and being slaughtered in the millions to having some uneasy feelings? and beside the point, if you think that as an agnostic the people who share your religion (or perhaps lack of it) stand an existential threat, then yes, i do.

My understanding is that Agnostics have been "hounded" for perhaps many years beyond that. However, as an agnostic myself, I don't think I am hugely effected by their (now concluded) problems, simply because I have a similar belief system. I also think that there is not any real modern threat if you live in America or Europe, as a religious minority (if that's what you can call agnostism.) Unless maybe you are a Muslim, because some of that religion's members have been causing some troubles in those places, in recent years.


Quote
it's possible in the same way the US could have relocated to space in order to avoid the dangers of the cold war - that is -  possible but immensely unpractical.

Only there's hundreds of millions more people and a huge vacuum's worth of difference. We'd also have to wear metallic jump suits and fined helmets for the rest of our lives. But on the plus side, every American citizen could ride around in spaceships and own their own robots. :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Draxas on July 28, 2006, 06:26:26 pm
No, it has never been done the way I outlined. I mean slowly take ground, leaving no one behind, but also killing no one. And you don't have international justification now, so there isn't much to lose (Israel would have been condemned for its actions if the US, as a member of the security council, had not vetoed the resolution or what not.) Basically, as I said before, both taking land or lives takes away moral credits or points in the eyes of the international community. So let's see what the advantages are to each:

Lives: Killing terrorists and leaders does not cost you any points, but it has never had any noticeable effect on your enemies, in the many, many decades of wars. No matter how careful you are, collatoral damage happens, when your opponents are hiding in cities. Collatoral damage motivates more to become terrorists, and causes you to lose points.

Land: Taking land bloodlessly costs you points, but because people don't see injured children on the TV sets, it costs less (perhaps alot less.) Land that is taken and cleared does not leave really any places to hide. This creates a frontier, which protects your inner territory from small rocket attacks. Large rockets, like SCUDs can be countered with Patriot Missile batteries and such, at least to some extent. Note however, that you cannot build buffer zones to protect settled areas that were never part of the original Israel from the 1940's. Any Israelis who live in the cleared lands must come in small numbers (no cities, they are targets) and must understand that there is a certain level of risk that comes with being out there, near the frontier.

There is benefit for Israel in the taking of Land, there is no benefit in the taking of Lives, be they terrorist or otherwise.

With palestine, you took a lot of land, left the entire populace there under occupation, and every so often send military expeditions in that end up killing civilians. This costs you moral points on the global scale, and creates more enemies on a local scale.

Come on, DS. This "plan" is far too idealistic, with no conception of the reality of the situation. Everyone in the region owns an AK-47 and is encouraged to use it by one faction or another interested in causing chaos for its own agendas. Now, what do you suppose is going to happen if soldiers come to displace these people from their homes so the bulldozers can move in?

Let's say that an entire village does evacuate peacefully. What then? You have several hundred people displaced from their homes. Where can they go? The countries surrounding Israel are notorious for being unsympathetic to refugees; in fact, most of them have used their soldiers to keep the refugees out. If they can't go out, they have to stay in, which just means yet another refugee came within Isreal's (now expanded) borders. We can see how well that arrangement has worked out for the past 60 years.

As a side note, those Patriot batteries were just a showcase of new technology for the first Gulf War. The sad reality is that their performance was greatly exaggerated by the media; the resulting burning shrapnel from two destroyed missiles arguably did more damage and cost more lives than the warheads in those SCUDs. Let's not even talk about what kind of horrifying situation would have occurred if any of them were chamical or biological weapons; nothing disperses deadly agents quite as effectively as an airburst above a target.

Israel had no choice with the West Bank and Gaza. Those people weren't going to leave; they had far more political leverage establishing refugee camps and fighting a guerilla war. And even if they wanted to leave, the neighboring nations turned them away, using lethal force as they liked, since they also were in a better political situation by forcing the refugees to stay within Israel. What were the Israelis supposed to do, exterminate them?

Using a "pseudo-nation" like Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon is the only way these countries can still wage war against Israel. Their militaries don't stand a chance, and they know it; Israel's neighbors have been embarassed time and again when they attempted direct offensives. However, manipulating a nebulous entity like Hezbollah to do your dirty work makes it much easier to accomplish their goals without having the stigma of direct responsibility nor potential failure to hamper their aims; you can bet that they consider Hezbollah a useful tool, but nothing more, and would shed nary a tear if they were completely wiped out. There are dozens of other organizations just like them willing to step up and become the next tool.

Let's not even discuss what would happen if one of these nations was to successfully develop nuclear weapons. We would be engulfed by a global nuclear winter by the end of the month. You can bet that nearly every terrorist organization that is willing openly express anti-Israeli or anti-American sentiments would be gifted with nuclear weapons by their ever-so-generous benefactors. Imagine if the next bomb that goes off in a Tel Aviv cafe is an atomic suitcase bomb.

Now imagine if one of those was aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center or Pentagon.

Nuclear deterrence only works if the nations participating are led by people sane enough not to press the Big Red Button. I personally don't ascribe that level of sanity to the leaders of most of the nations in the Middle East (nor North Korea, but I'm not quite sure if that's entirely relevant to this discussion).


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2006, 07:13:44 pm
Quote
Come on, DS. This "plan" is far too idealistic, with no conception of the reality of the situation.

It is only a modification of current tactics. Obviously things aren't working with the current strategies, I'm talking about the lesser of two evils.


Quote
Let's say that an entire village does evacuate peacefully. What then? You have several hundred people displaced from their homes. Where can they go?

At least they still have all their lives, the status quo doesn't grant them that. Also note that you ONLY push in as far as to protect haifa. The economic damage of the destroyed homes is negated by you NOT bombing Beiruit and collapsing its infrastructure (which is too far away to make a good rocket launching site, anyway.) Both create vast economic damage, but one keeps more civis out of harms way (death.) Also, Israel is a rich nation and receives aid from the US which is extremely rich. So those displaced people can be compensated financially.


Quote
If they can't go out, they have to stay in, which just means yet another refugee came within Isreal's (now expanded) borders. We can see how well that arrangement has worked out for the past 60 years.

Then cut gaza and the west bank loose, completely! Rockets are not being fired from those places. Gaza can join Egypt, the West Bank can join Jordan.


Quote
As a side note, those Patriot batteries were just a showcase of new technology for the first Gulf War.

Which was a long time ago. There's now Patriot 2's and Israeli made interception devices. But there aren't skuds landing on Israel right now so it is not real important.


Quote
Israel had no choice with the West Bank and Gaza. . .What were the Israelis supposed to do, exterminate them?

No, release them. Send forces to where there is a more aggressive threat, in the north.


Quote
There are dozens of other organizations just like them willing to step up and become the next tool.

Yes, and that's why trying to wipe it out is pointless. Look at the US, it is a powerhouse, could it destroy Al Qaeda? So what gives Israel an edge that'd give it even a chance at somehow smashing Hezbollah?


Quote
Let's not even discuss what would happen if one of these nations was to successfully develop nuclear weapons. We would be engulfed by a global nuclear winter by the end of the month.

I hope you meant to say Iran. It is highly unlikely that the North Koreans don't have a bomb already. Iran has development sites all over its vast land. Soon they will have them too. So sell your suv and buy a bicycle.

As for Nuclear Winter, I think Mt St Helens blew with more force than many, many A-bombs. I wouldn't worry about it too much. And if worse comes to worse, you have something to counter global warming, and Al Gore gets to make a sequel. ;)


Quote
Imagine if the next bomb that goes off in a Tel Aviv cafe is an atomic suitcase bomb.

Now imagine if one of those was aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center or Pentagon.

In both cases, there would be hell to pay for any nation even suspected to have been involved.


Quote
Nuclear deterrence only works if the nations participating are led by people sane enough not to press the Big Red Button. I personally don't ascribe that level of sanity to the leaders of most of the nations in the Middle East (nor North Korea, but I'm not quite sure if that's entirely relevant to this discussion).

All throughout the cold war, people were terrified that some madman might get into the seat of the kremlin or whitehouse and start WW3. But it never happened. And that was a situation that'd leave all cities in ruin, this is much less threatening.


Okay, so if you you still don't like the policy change I suggested, would you like to present an alternative strategy to the current situation (i.e. mess?)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 28, 2006, 08:58:12 pm
Quote
that aside, would a contribution of a cent say that he doesn't have the right to complain?  i would  say of course not, it's a ridiculous sum that wouldn't buy anything, but on the other hand what if ten guys donated a cent each and  the bottle of ether used to drug the soldiers kidnapped cost 10 cents? so my answer is i don't know - i don't know if there IS a clear cut answer to this

Yeah. Israel causes so much collateral damage to things that have only remotely to do with the terrorist actions themselves, that it gives me the creeps.
But it's not about those terrorist actions anymore, is it. It's become a war, and an ugly one, too.
On both sides, btw. There are a lot of civilian casualties on both sides.
I wonder why they still use the term "terrorists" when they talk about this war, it makes no sense to me.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Draxas on July 28, 2006, 09:08:34 pm
Quote
Let's say that an entire village does evacuate peacefully. What then? You have several hundred people displaced from their homes. Where can they go?

At least they still have all their lives, the status quo doesn't grant them that. Also note that you ONLY push in as far as to protect haifa. The economic damage of the destroyed homes is negated by you NOT bombing Beiruit and collapsing its infrastructure (which is too far away to make a good rocket launching site, anyway.) Both create vast economic damage, but one keeps more civis out of harms way (death.) Also, Israel is a rich nation and receives aid from the US which is extremely rich. So those displaced people can be compensated financially.

Sure, they're alive, but what next? They're still displaced (assuming they didn't go for the AKs). Nobody will take them in, and starting a refugee camp on the spot is a disaster in the making; the only thing that's changed is that these people are now homeless, and resent Israel even more. That's like asking them to become terrorists.

Quote
Quote
If they can't go out, they have to stay in, which just means yet another refugee came within Isreal's (now expanded) borders. We can see how well that arrangement has worked out for the past 60 years.

Then cut gaza and the west bank loose, completely! Rockets are not being fired from those places. Gaza can join Egypt, the West Bank can join Jordan.

Oh sure, there are no rockets flying. But where do you think those suicide bombers are soming from? Hint: It's not any of the neighboring nations.

Besides, Gaza has already been cut loose, as well as major portions of the West Bank. Has it helped? Not a bit. You're trying to deal rationally with a people whose stated aim is to "drive the Jews into the sea," as their leaders so eloquently put it.

Quote
Quote
As a side note, those Patriot batteries were just a showcase of new technology for the first Gulf War.

Which was a long time ago. There's now Patriot 2's and Israeli made interception devices. But there aren't skuds landing on Israel right now so it is not real important.

The interception has gotten more sophisticated, but the aftermath is still the same; two missiles coverted into burning shrapnel plummet to the ground, and you simply have to hope nobody is going to be underneath them when they land. We don't have any method of interception that can completely obliterate incoming missiles. True, it's not really a relevant point, but I only brought it up since you mentioned that these could be used for defense.

Quote
Quote
Israel had no choice with the West Bank and Gaza. . .What were the Israelis supposed to do, exterminate them?

No, release them. Send forces to where there is a more aggressive threat, in the north.

Nobody watching the border, eh? The PA police don't keep any semblance of order among their people. This is like inviting the bombers in and asking them to stay for tea before they blow themselves up.

Quote
Quote
There are dozens of other organizations just like them willing to step up and become the next tool.

Yes, and that's why trying to wipe it out is pointless. Look at the US, it is a powerhouse, could it destroy Al Qaeda? So what gives Israel an edge that'd give it even a chance at somehow smashing Hezbollah?

Touche. But what's the alternative? Ignore them? Pave over them? Neither one is a viable solution, and will only increase problems in the long run. It would be nice if there was a better way to express the sentiment that "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore," but this is probably the most effective way to do so while minimizing casualties.

Quote
Quote
Let's not even discuss what would happen if one of these nations was to successfully develop nuclear weapons. We would be engulfed by a global nuclear winter by the end of the month.

I hope you meant to say Iran. It is highly unlikely that the North Koreans don't have a bomb already. Iran has development sites all over its vast land. Soon they will have them too. So sell your suv and buy a bicycle.

As for Nuclear Winter, I think Mt St Helens blew with more force than many, many A-bombs. I wouldn't worry about it too much. And if worse comes to worse, you have something to counter global warming, and Al Gore gets to make a sequel. ;)

I was referring to the nations of the Middle East. I can't imagine that the North Koreans would be doing missile tests if they didn't have the ordinance to back them up, either.

I drive a nice car that gets decent gas mileage. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I drove an SUV, they embody everything I hate about driving in one huge, obnoxious package. The only vehicle capable of doing that more effectively is a Hummer, but that's another topic for another day. Suffice to say, though, I don't relish the fact that I have to pay ~$3 a gallon for gas, and that that figure is likely to increase pretty much indefinitely. However, I don't see myself having much of an option at this point; my hour-long commute would eat up the better part of my day on a bicycle, and I don't have enough hours in the day as is. :P

Realistically, the nuclear winter comment was just for dramatic effect; I'm not really concerned about it actually occurring either. On the other hand, the idea of an atomic weapon detonating in the middle of a major metropolitan area is a pretty terrifying thought (especially being only ~30 miles from NYC as I am). It's scary enough thinking that the first thing Iran would do with its nuclear arsenal is to launch the whole lot at Israel; once that's done, why stop there? There are plenty more infidels that need to be cleansed from the Earth!

Quote
Quote
Imagine if the next bomb that goes off in a Tel Aviv cafe is an atomic suitcase bomb.

Now imagine if one of those was aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center or Pentagon.

In both cases, there would be hell to pay for any nation even suspected to have been involved.

Would there? I'm not so sure. While it does, on the one hand, mean that said nation has shown the complete lack of scruples to use such a weapon in an unprovoked attack, on the other, it shows that said nation has shown the complete lack of scruples to use such a weapon in an unprovoked attack. If they've done it once, what's to stop them from doing it again? Who would be gutsy enough to make the first move in that scenario, and risk juming to the top of the target list?

Quote
Quote
Nuclear deterrence only works if the nations participating are led by people sane enough not to press the Big Red Button. I personally don't ascribe that level of sanity to the leaders of most of the nations in the Middle East (nor North Korea, but I'm not quite sure if that's entirely relevant to this discussion).

All throughout the cold war, people were terrified that some madman might get into the seat of the kremlin or whitehouse and start WW3. But it never happened. And that was a situation that'd leave all cities in ruin, this is much less threatening.

But that's precisely why nothing happened. Everyone was so afraid of a nuclear scenario, that fear kept them in check. Think of the infamous Goldwater (at least I believe it was him) presidential campaign; that one comment ("I am willing to use nuclear weapons") and one TV commercial (You know it, the one with the little girl and the flower) that only needed to run ONCE, and his campaign essentially ended right there.

Now consider the Middle East, especially a terrorist group. What's stopping them? They don't have that same fear that we do; they are motivated by fanaticism, and have so little to lose vs. so much to gain from a show of that magnitude of force. These people are willing to wear conventional explosives as a vest, so they obviously place no value on their own lives except as a vehicle to claim as many other lives as possible. Why would they limit the scope of the devastation if given a choice?

Quote
Okay, so if you you still don't like the policy change I suggested, would you like to present an alternative strategy to the current situation (i.e. mess?)

I recognize my limitations as a military strategist; I can't pretend to have an alternative here in my comfortable armchair so far away from where things are actually happening. I don't have access to the same intelligence, and can't possibly know precisely what's going on from simply watching the TV and reading news sites and message boards. I am not so pretentious as to think that my extensive military background of video and tabletop games has in any way prepared me to make decisions in a battle where real people's lives are at stake.

However, I tend to be inclined to have a bit more trust in the decisions made by the IDF. It helps to have a little perspective on the situation; Israel is a nation that has had to fight tooth and nail for its survival from the very first minute. On the day they declared their independence, they were summarily invaded by several of their larger and more militarily powerful neighbors. That pretty much set the stage for their entire existence; every few years until the '70s, their neighbors would all simultaneously invade when it was least expected and the Israelis would have to fight them off. Suffice to say, they became good at it, arguably the best in the world. Did I mention that my grandparents and father were living there in 1948? Well, I guess I did now. You may be able to imagine how wonderful an experience it was for my grandparents, who had been liberated from the camps only 3 years before, to find themselves right in the middle of another warzone.

Point is, in order to survive there, the people have had to adopt a very hard-bitten, no-nonsense approach to these sorts of matters. And over the past 60 years of nonstop violence, punctuated by brief periods of "only a few suicide bombers this week," they've learned to deal with them very well. It's something that we in the US and other, more peaceful regions of the world, have a hard time getting a grasp on. So, while you may not think their solution is the best one (and it very well may not be, but who am I to say?), it's probably pretty likely to work out in the end.

Quote
Yeah. Israel causes so much collateral damage to things that have only remotely to do with the terrorist actions themselves, that it gives me the creeps.
But it's not about those terrorist actions anymore, is it. It's become a war, and an ugly one, too.
On both sides, btw. There are a lot of civilian casualties on both sides.
I wonder why they still use the term "terrorists" when they talk about this war, it makes no sense to me.

Because "puppets of Iran and Syria" just doesn't capture the essence of it quite as well. Then again, neither does "pseudo-government of the pseudo-nation of South Lebanon."

I wonder, are there any wars that can be considered "pretty?" Every war is an ugly one.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Slylendro on July 28, 2006, 10:03:20 pm
AHHH I'm back from 3 weeks from the line where I've been in ambushes, observation posts and what else
the bad thing is that I gonna go back there in sunday for another ...3..... painful weeks, man this is fun!


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 28, 2006, 11:07:15 pm
Draxas: i couldn't have expressed my feeling better myself.

DS&Draxas: FYI, we retreated from the gaza strip and missiles started raining down and haven't stopped since, in fact just today a missile fell on a kindergarden wounding two children next to zikim - apparently it just wasn't interesting enough to reach the headlines, and the same goes for all the missiles that fell since the retreat otherwise you would have heard about them...

DS: i'll illustrate - if we were sitting in this buffer zone which you suggested (regardless of wether civi's are present or not) an attack on our soldiers would have been viewed by the world as justified since we are in "occupied" territories (and the fact that we declared in advance we are going to take them "forever" wouldn't make the world bat an eyelid, they would still say we occupied them) and when an attack is made on our soldiers in our territory at least the world can understand that the reasons for the attacks have never been about "occupied" territories all along but a mixture of religious fanatiscism and foreign interets of countries (Syria and Iran) who want the area to burn.

and by the way, if you think showing two dead children the TV has a greater effect that showing thousands of people being herded from their homes by an occupying force which then proceeds in wrecking them i think your'e wrong. and i also think you can bet on it that executing such a move would be anything but bloodless...

"With palestine, you took a lot of land, left the entire populace there under occupation, and every so often send military expeditions in that end up killing civilians"

i'll assume your talking about the gaza strip because otherwise i don't know what palestine you are talking about, but anyway, we evacuated it, so it can't be considered under occupation and as to sending in military expeditions - well what would you suggest doing with an area out of which missiles are lobbed daily with the terrorists running back to hide amongst the civilians besides going in and getting them?

"I also think that there is not any real modern threat if you live in America or Europe, as a religious minority."

you know, that's funny, that exactly what the jews in germany thought to themselves " the german people are modern and won't let anything like that happen" - i think you can understand how that looks like blind trust to those who have been through that before...

"The economic damage of the destroyed homes is negated by you NOT bombing Beiruit and collapsing its infrastructure (which is too far away to make a good rocket launching site, anyway.) "

 HZ launched today a new kind of rocket handed over to them by the iranians which can be launched from north lebanon.

GeomanNL:

"Yeah. Israel causes so much collateral damage to things that have only remotely to do with the terrorist actions themselves, that it gives me the creeps."

are you talking about the HZ personnal building HZ built above their undergound command bunker in Beirut? or are you talking about the bridges through which the iranians and syrians constantly resupply HZ? or perhaps the power station of beirut which supplied electricity to the residents of the city who sit on the fence while their countrymen kidnap our soldiers on our  territories or snipe from the other side of the fence at farmers in the fields? i'm sorry, i don't see all those as "remotely connected" to terrorism.





Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on July 29, 2006, 12:46:23 am
Quote
"Yeah. Israel causes so much collateral damage to things that have only remotely to do with the terrorist actions themselves, that it gives me the creeps."

are you talking about the HZ personnal building HZ built above their undergound command bunker in Beirut? or are you talking about the bridges through which the iranians and syrians constantly resupply HZ? or perhaps the power station of beirut which supplied electricity to the residents of the city who sit on the fence while their countrymen kidnap our soldiers on our  territories or snipe from the other side of the fence at farmers in the fields? i'm sorry, i don't see all those as "remotely connected" to terrorism.

You're forgetting suburban residential areas, factories, villages of farmers, shops, vehicles carrying refuguees.

There's one other point btw. People mention that Syria and Iran are the real culprits. So why doesn't Israel attack those to create a long and lasting peace in the Middle East ? Or is Lebanon just practice in preparation for the real work later on ?
I'm pretty sure that you don't like the idea of such a big war, so you're not going to solve anything, you're just living in another illusion that you've accomplished something by neutralizing hizbollah.
Also, I can imagine how the current government is going to occupy southern lebanon, and that in 10 years from now, another government with another agenda, will vacate it again, and the whole process will start all over again.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 29, 2006, 01:14:29 am
Quote
i'll illustrate - if we were sitting in this buffer zone which you suggested (regardless of wether civi's are present or not) an attack on our soldiers would have been viewed by the world as justified since we are in "occupied"

Your soldiers are a modern army, fighting in the open. Who stands a better chance, them or your civilians? We're not talking about perfect solutions here, just something that would produce less casaulties and stop the rockets.


Quote
and by the way, if you think showing two dead children the TV has a greater effect that showing thousands of people being herded from their homes by an occupying force which then proceeds in wrecking them i think your'e wrong. and i also think you can bet on it that executing such a move would be anything but bloodless...

There's only two dead children? What makes you think the current count is so unbelievably low? Buffer creation is already a policy of Israel's. Those whose homes are bulldozed are not currently financially compensated, so that they can buy land and build new ones someplace else. This is strapped onto bombing campaigns that end up killing a lot of civis. I'm saying go in a more humanitarian direction, that also allows you to form a frontline-- the secret to winning against hit and run fighters.

Look at the US with its wars in 3rd world nations. Taking ground, abandoning it, then retaking it when the fighters return. It always fails in the end.


Quote
and as to sending in military expeditions - well what would you suggest doing with an area out of which missiles are lobbed daily with the terrorists running back to hide amongst the civilians besides going in and getting them?

So are you saying that Hezbollah or Hamas are firing rockets from Gaza? How many exactly (my impression was that most everything was coming out of southern lebanon, but maybe that is wrong.)


Quote
you know, that's funny, that exactly what the jews in germany thought to themselves " the german people are modern and won't let anything like that happen" - i think you can understand how that looks like blind trust to those who have been through that before...

When french muslims rioted en masse in french streets across the nation, not much happened to them. I think that is a big example of Europe's current cultural state.


Quote
HZ launched today a new kind of rocket handed over to them by the iranians which can be launched from north lebanon.

Where did it land (I haven't watched the news yet today?)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 29, 2006, 01:45:19 am
Oops, it looks like I missed your most recent post, Draxas. I think I have answered some of your points by responding to what distant_watcher said, but I'll try and answer the rest if I can keep everything straight (not always easy during large debates.) ???


Quote
Besides, Gaza has already been cut loose, as well as major portions of the West Bank. Has it helped? Not a bit. You're trying to deal rationally with a people whose stated aim is to "drive the Jews into the sea," as their leaders so eloquently put it.

Yes, but some territories in the west bank were left occupied. You have to go cold turkey to give the impression you are no longer occupying those places. Then expand that fence that Sharon was building. Request that the UN help rebuild palestinian infrastructure so that they are no longer dependent on Israeli (as they'll no longer be allowed in.)

Suicide bombers can be stopped by walls fences and a military, little rockets cannot as of yet.


Quote
The interception has gotten more sophisticated, but the aftermath is still the same; two missiles coverted into burning shrapnel plummet to the ground, and you simply have to hope nobody is going to be underneath them when they land. We don't have any method of interception that can completely obliterate incoming missiles.

You still seem to be dealing in absolutes- Good Vs. Bad. There are such things as Better and Worse. Destroying a missile before it gets over your city is better than not. Destroying a missile before it gets over your land is better still.

The same goes for the smaller rockets. Having them land on farm fields is much better than them landing in Haifa.

It is like when Japan launched bomb balloons at the US in WW2. One man got killed trying to move it when it landed in his farm field and without immediately going off.


Quote
Touche. But what's the alternative? Ignore them? Pave over them? Neither one is a viable solution, and will only increase problems in the long run. It would be nice if there was a better way to express the sentiment that "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore," but this is probably the most effective way to do so while minimizing casualties.

Do you really think Hezbollah cares if Israel is angry, that they can be scared into submission?


Quote
On the other hand, the idea of an atomic weapon detonating in the middle of a major metropolitan area is a pretty terrifying thought (especially being only ~30 miles from NYC as I am). It's scary enough thinking that the first thing Iran would do with its nuclear arsenal is to launch the whole lot at Israel; once that's done, why stop there? There are plenty more infidels that need to be cleansed from the Earth!

If you were living in San Fransisco, you'd probably be worried a lot more about North Korea. But Iran can't fire at the US, we're too far away. You are talking about Nuclear Terrorism.


Quote
While it does, on the one hand, mean that said nation has shown the complete lack of scruples to use such a weapon in an unprovoked attack, on the other, it shows that said nation has shown the complete lack of scruples to use such a weapon in an unprovoked attack. If they've done it once, what's to stop them from doing it again?

Ah. . .the nations they just fired on? Do you think Israel or America would leave Iran be after their capital cities were fried by them? I think not. It'd be their last mistake.


Quote
Now consider the Middle East, especially a terrorist group. What's stopping them? They don't have that same fear that we do; they are motivated by fanaticism, and have so little to lose vs. so much to gain from a show of that magnitude of force.

Terrorist groups aren't developing nukes. A country would have to give them such firepower, and then it would be toast itself.


Quote
So, while you may not think their solution is the best one (and it very well may not be, but who am I to say?), it's probably pretty likely to work out in the end.

How do you get from Tel Aviv and New York going up in fireballs, to "work out in the end?"


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Censored on July 29, 2006, 01:47:35 am
I personally believe Iran is buying time for itself with this conflict, just enough to finish its nuclear agenda.
by the time everything settles down here they'll have nuclear warheads, and things will be a lot uglier and much more complicated.
if I were a fanatic, religious leader in a non-democratic country, and have warheads, I would probably launch them soon enough. what would such a leader have to lose? his life? that's hardly a threat to such characters.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Censored on July 29, 2006, 02:03:27 am
Suicide bombers can be stopped by walls fences and a military, little rockets cannot as of yet.

actually, taking down rockets, and even shells is feasable today, using the Nautilous, aka Sky Guard, a joint American-Israeli development.
even when I was in the army some 6 years ago there were successful tests, the main problem being to minimize the weapon's size from a building to a truck.

I'm sure you can find better conceptual drawings or even real photos if you look good enough.
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060111/060111_groundlaser.standard.jpg) (http://media.primezone.com/cache/189/int/3097.jpg) (http://www.membrana.ru/images/articles/1152891525-1.jpeg)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 29, 2006, 02:47:22 am
Quote
I personally believe Iran is buying time for itself with this conflict, just enough to finish its nuclear agenda.
by the time everything settles down here they'll have nuclear warheads

I agree on both points. The question is whether or not Admenijad (I think that is how his name is spelled) is a true believer, or just someone who finds religion a useful tool for staying powerful.


Quote
actually, taking down rockets, and even shells is feasable today, using the Nautilous, aka Sky Guard, a joint American-Israeli development.

Cool stuff. I've seen a lot of these prototypes on TV, but I don't think any will be on the battlefield for a year or two at least (though maybe current events will pick up the pace a little.)


Quote
I'm sure you can find better conceptual drawings or even real photos if you look good enough.

Yea, here is a concept of one that functioned back in the early '90s:

(http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc1/images/human1_3b.jpg)

Sorry folks, just trying to lighten up things a little. :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 29, 2006, 11:41:46 am
GeomanNL:
"You're forgetting suburban residential areas, factories, villages of farmers, shops, vehicles carrying refugees.

There's one other point btw. People mention that Syria and Iran are the real culprits. So why doesn't Israel attack those to create a long and lasting peace in the Middle East? Or is Lebanon just practice in preparation for the real work later on?
I'm pretty sure that you don't like the idea of such a big war, so you're not going to solve anything; you're just living in another illusion that you've accomplished something by neutralizing hizbollah.
Also, I can imagine how the current government is going to occupy southern Lebanon, and that in 10 years from now, another government with another agenda, will vacate it again, and the whole process will start all over again."

suburban residential areas of HZ personnel, villages of farmers in south Lebanon that launch rockets and whose farmers were warned 36 hours before to get out of there, vehicles carrying katyusha missile, shops which allow the terrorists to hide there because they know we won't knowingly hit civilians until we gave the inhabitants of the shops a warning before we bombed it, or factories in which the northern Lebanese used to work while they sat on the fence while their countrymen attacked us (and I'm talking before the kidnappings)

as for a clear cut war against Syria and Iran - I think you know where that can go to, evidentially both Syria and Iran don't want to go down that path ,(at least for now) and we certainly don't want to either. However, you cannot sit on your butt while being harassed and provoked generally for six years - nobody would stand for it. This is the lesser evil. as for going in and out forever - well if Lebanon would have done it's share the first time - progressed to the south border and held it, or if the UN force would have done it's job it wouldn't have gotten to this - so if they will kindly do their job NOW (Lebanon and the UN) this won't have to be repeated.

DS:
"Your soldiers are a modern army, fighting in the open. Who stands a better chance, them or your civilians? We're not talking about perfect solutions here, just something that would produce less casualties and stop the rockets."

great, so instead of having civvies dying daily we'll go back to soldiers dying daily and then the world will say, "okay, but what do you want, you ARE occupying foreign territory", and besides south Lebanon is most definitely NOT the open - it's as suited for guerilla warfare as can get.

as for the count being low, even if it were 20 children the way I think the world sees it is "twenty children have been killed - how horrifying!" and a week later they forget about while seeing thousands of people being forcefully evacuated and then hearing about them periodically creates a bigger impression. mind you, however, I most certainly do not think that is the better option (children killed that is) I'm just saying the world reacts to it in a much harsher fashion and wouldn't have allowed it (not to mention the fact that I think that this method would have created just as many casualties).

"So are you saying that Hezbollah or Hamas are firing rockets from Gaza? How many exactly (my impression was that most everything was coming out of southern Lebanon, but maybe that is wrong). "

usually at least twice a day before the current mess in Lebanon but since even the Israeli media coverage of that dropped since then it looks like they stepped it down a bit until they can get some decent effect. Besides, even one a day is enough to paralyze and traumatize a whole city (which is what happens).

"When french muslims rioted en masse in french streets across the nation, not much happened to them. I think that is a big example of Europe's current cultural state."

you're forgetting that they compose roughly a sixth of the population and that they have all the Arab countries backing them - try to imagine what would have happened if a bunch of young Muslim rioters would have been shot down by a nervous French policeman who thought he saw them holding guns? You saw what went on when a newspaper posted caricatures (CARICATURES, for crying out loud!), the blood went to head of the collective Islam, and they attacked embassies and what not. Can you see the Jewish world responding in such a fashion? Why, just now there was a Muslim who gunned down pregnant Jewish women in Seattle! Do you see us attacking embassies?   

"Where did it land (I haven't watched the news yet today?)".

In Afula, it carried a 100 kg explosive warhead and it's called an improved Fag'er 5 with a range of 100 km

DS (to draxas):
" Yes, but some territories in the west bank were left occupied. You have to go cold turkey to give the impression you are no longer occupying those places. Then expand that fence that Sharon was building. Request that the UN help rebuild Palestinian infrastructure so that they are no longer dependent on Israeli (as they'll no longer be allowed in).

Suicide bombers can be stopped by walls fences and a military, little rockets cannot as of yet."

After we evacuated Gaza and we got all those missiles flying over our heads for fun you just want us to evacuate the west bank?? So we can have the fun of getting more of those?? and as for the fence, it cannot stop the suicide bombers, the best it can do is slow down their pace a bit, every time we close the passes after a bombing the UN and Palestinians start shouting "inhumane, inhumane!" and then we open it again and then another suicide bomber sneaks in such as a Palestinian woman who said the reason the metal detector was beeping is because she had a platinum implant in her leg and once she got through she blew herself up! (a real incident BTW).
Those "little" rockets are like daily mortar fire on the cities of Shderot, Ashkelon and the whole area - they are not something to belittle.

"Do you really think Hezbollah cares if Israel is angry, that they can be scared into submission?"

no, but they can be damaged in such a manner that it would take them a couple of years to rebuild, and in the meantime the Lebanese and the UN will be able to do their duty (which is not to say they really will).

"But Iran can't fire at the US, we're too far away."

You're probably not aware of this but Iran IS developing long range missiles that can reach anywhere in the US, so I wouldn't be very calm about it if I were you.

"Terrorist groups aren't developing nukes. A country would have to give them such firepower, and then it would be toast itself"

Iran gave HZ long range missiles capable of landing anywhere is Israel and launched from anywhere in Lebanon and they are suspected to have given them chemical warheads, what's to stop them from giving them such a missile with nuclear armament once they have the nukes?

Censored:
actually i think the Nautilos program was canceled some time ago but i may be wrong.

DS (to censored):

LOL, now we only need an utwig shield over cities that provide us with electricity every time a missile hits the shield since we already have shofixti-like suicide bombers ;)
edited: actually, i think i got it! get the whole area to listen to the original quasi-space theme until they are totally and utterly calm and with a zenlike disposition!  :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 29, 2006, 05:40:07 pm
Quote
great, so instead of having civvies dying daily we'll go back to soldiers dying daily and then the world will say, "okay, but what do you want, you ARE occupying foreign territory", and besides south Lebanon is most definitely NOT the open - it's as suited for guerilla warfare as can get.

That's if you had soldiers who are patrolling hostile cities. You would need to form a frontline, out in the open.


Quote
mind you, however, I most certainly do not think that is the better option (children killed that is) I'm just saying the world reacts to it in a much harsher fashion and wouldn't have allowed it (not to mention the fact that I think that this method would have created just as many casualties).

Again, if those displaced were compensated, and if powerplants, fuel depots and other infrastructural resources were not bombed into oblivion, and if both Gaza and the West Bank were completely cut loose, the outcry might not be very far from what you are getting now. You trade land and lives, to get land and some higher degree of safety.


Quote
usually at least twice a day before the current mess in Lebanon but since even the Israeli media coverage of that dropped since then it looks like they stepped it down a bit until they can get some decent effect. Besides, even one a day is enough to paralyze and traumatize a whole city (which is what happens).

Also, I don't think those rockets were nearly as powerful or accurate as what is coming out of lebanon (the Gaza rockets look sort of home-made.)


Quote
you're forgetting that they compose roughly a sixth of the population and that they have all the Arab countries backing them - try to imagine what would have happened if a bunch of young Muslim rioters would have been shot down by a nervous French policeman who thought he saw them holding guns? You saw what went on when a newspaper posted caricatures (CARICATURES, for crying out loud!), the blood went to head of the collective Islam, and they attacked embassies and what not. Can you see the Jewish world responding in such a fashion? Why, just now there was a Muslim who gunned down pregnant Jewish women in Seattle! Do you see us attacking embassies?

Actually, it is a tenth. If France has a population of about 45 million, than that's 4.5 million-- three quarters of Israel's population. Someone please correct me if any of these figures are off.


Quote
In Afula, it carried a 100 kg explosive warhead and it's called an improved Fag'er 5 with a range of 100 km

Hmm yea, I saw that last night. It did crash into a farmfield though, so it might not be very accurate. Another question is, how many do they really have of these larger rockets, and how long does it take them to get them ready to fire (can they be put on the back of a pick-up truck or do they need bigger transportation?) Also, are they big enough to be shot down by Patriot 2's?


Quote
After we evacuated Gaza and we got all those missiles flying over our heads for fun you just want us to evacuate the west bank?? So we can have the fun of getting more of those?? and as for the fence, it cannot stop the suicide bombers, the best it can do is slow down their pace a bit

A fence, with troops backing it up, and eventually a policy that people cannot enter Israel from these formerly occupied territories. The world is a rich place, I'm sure it can help the Palestinians achieve economic indepence from Israel, if it means a lasting peace. But separation is the only solution at this point, methinks. There is just too much hate for coexistence to be possible.


Quote
Those "little" rockets are like daily mortar fire on the cities of Shderot, Ashkelon and the whole area - they are not something to belittle.

I said "little" because Patriot 2's can take a shot at large rockets like SCUDs, but little rockets provide a target too small to be shot down. Also, little rockets can be used en masse and more easily hidden and more quickly deployed. Thus a lot of little rockets can do what a few big ones cannot-- by-pass your defenses unchecked. The only things that would have a shot at it are the l.a.s.e.r. based weapons Censored brought up, but those are not currently deployed. But if it makes you feel better (which is doubtful,) Hezbollah also seems to have some larger rockets.


Quote
no, but they can be damaged in such a manner that it would take them a couple of years to rebuild, and in the meantime the Lebanese and the UN will be able to do their duty (which is not to say they really will).

Highly doubtful, they will just retreat further underground and resurface as soon as the coast is clear. In fact, it almost seems like they want to draw you into a fight. It probably helps their recruiting efforts.


Quote
You're probably not aware of this but Iran IS developing long range missiles that can reach anywhere in the US, so I wouldn't be very calm about it if I were you.

So is North Korea, but their missile tech is further along (though they probably share it with Iran) and they seem to be much closer to us geographically. It will be a long while (if ever) before Iran can hit the US (we're talking big ICBMs here.)

Also, the US has been through the Cold War and the most recent Gulf War (Iraqi Freedom.) The threat of total destruction from the CW makes it harder for us to get worked up over threats. The war in Iraq has shown (and continues to show) us the price of direct interference in the middle east. Right now, I think most Americans are asking "How do we get out?" and not so much "How do we get this thing three times bigger?"


Quote
Iran gave HZ long range missiles capable of landing anywhere is Israel and launched from anywhere in Lebanon and they are suspected to have given them chemical warheads, what's to stop them from giving them such a missile with nuclear armament once they have the nukes?

Because there are vast differences in the response you get based on what ordinance you use. If they continue using conventional ordinance, you'll continue to do what you're doing now. If they use chemical warheads, and Israelis die by the hundreds, you will certainly take the fight to them directly (Iran) with conventional and maybe chemical weapons of your own. If they use nukes, you will nuke them back, and they will die (not just the terrorists now, the whole government, and much of the populace of Iran.)


Quote
actually, i think i got it! get the whole area to listen to the original quasi-space theme until they are totally and utterly calm and with a zenlike disposition!

Just as long as nobody gets a hold of the Kzer-Za theme-- that could be used to scare entire nations into submission. :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on July 29, 2006, 07:10:36 pm
"That's if you had soldiers who are patrolling hostile cities. You would need to form a frontline, out in the open."

And then you would have a series of outposts which would get pounded continually and then soldiers will die regularly...

"Again, if those displaced were compensated, and if powerplants, fuel depots and other infrastructural resources were not bombed into oblivion, and if both Gaza and the West Bank were completely cut loose, the outcry might not be very far from what you are getting now."

I think that's a matter of personal opinion - I think the world would probably look at it as a matter of principle (taking over land) rather than simply looking at the financial side of it. plus, you are ignoring the fact that such a move mill most certainly not go quietly and they're sure to be many casualties on both sides.

"Also, I don't think those rockets were nearly as powerful or accurate as what is coming out of Lebanon (the Gaza rockets look sort of home-made.)"

They are but it doesn't really matter - one rocket is enough, we're talking about short distances here and a city is a relatively large target - even if you lob a rocket that lands in an empty park you achieved your goal - terror.

"Hmm yea, I saw that last night. It did crash into a farmfield though, so it might not be very accurate. Another question is, how many do they really have of these larger rockets, and how long does it take them to get them ready to fire (can they be put on the back of a pick-up truck or do they need bigger transportation?) Also, are they big enough to be shot down by Patriot 2's?"

Errr, we're going into technical issues here that I don't really know about, but the point is the range - it is large enough to be shot from beyond Beirut.

"A fence, with troops backing it up, and eventually a policy that people cannot enter Israel from these formerly occupied territories. The world is a rich place, I'm sure it can help the Palestinians achieve economic indepence from Israel, if it means a lasting peace. But separation is the only solution at this point, methinks. There is just too much hate for coexistence to be possible."

And then the Palestinians would build up armaments while lobbing more missiles at us all the time and then in the end we would end up with a double HZ!

"Highly doubtful, they will just retreat further underground and resurface as soon as the coast is clear. In fact, it almost seems like they want to draw you into a fight. It probably helps their recruiting efforts."

a) you're forgetting that HZ is not El-Qaida - it has training camps, bunkers and TV stations in easy striking distance that require some extra pounding
b) it's not recruits that they need, it's money.

"Because there are vast differences in the response you get based on what ordinance you use. If they continue using conventional ordinance, you'll continue to do what you're doing now. If they use chemical warheads, and Israelis die by the hundreds, you will certainly take the fight to them directly (Iran) with conventional and maybe chemical weapons of your own. If they use nukes, you will nuke them back, and they will die (not just the terrorists now, the whole government, and much of the populace of Iran.)"

if don't think they really care about it so much, after all we ARE talking about the government that encouraged their people to act as human flesh walls when Iraq invaded and when they turned tables and started invading Iraq and we are talking about the people of Iran who actually did so - this looks to me like a nation of fanatics who attribute nil value to their lives.

Warning: Light headed text ahead!
As long as they don't use the kor-ah theme - that would just send them running  :)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 30, 2006, 05:23:34 am
Well, I guess we'll just have to see how things go for a while. It seems like every few days something new happens in this conflict, which changes the situation in a significant way. Many of the assumptions we are making right now could be proven to be wrong in as little as a week or two.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: RTyp06 on July 30, 2006, 07:08:30 pm
Here's somthing interesting that may (or may not) be relevant to this discussion...I'm guessing not but, you never know..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060727-book-psalms.html


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Censored on August 05, 2006, 11:00:55 pm
Here is a very interesting and informative article. It's a bit long but well-worth the time reading it.
I highly recommend taking a look, it may benefit the discussion - though it touchs everything but the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

http://www.freedoms.calebflerk.com/hararispeech.htm


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: XR4-IT on August 10, 2006, 07:11:59 pm
I think that Israel is hoping that some one will sneak into Jerusalem to fire some of those non-guided missiles, and *accidentally* blowup the Dome of the Rock so they can replace it with a temple.

I probably should not say that but I will any way.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Lukipela on August 10, 2006, 07:22:50 pm
Quote
I probably should not say that but I will any way.

You're right. It accomplishes very little.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on August 10, 2006, 08:40:41 pm
XRT-14
Quote
think that Israel is hoping that some one will sneak into Jerusalem to fire some of those non-guided missiles, and *accidentally* blowup the Dome of the Rock so they can replace it with a temple.

I probably should not say that but I will any way. "


if that was wishful thinking then one might as well wish for every bit of land occupied by jews in israel to be transferred to the other side of the globe as far away from arabs as possible... ;D
and if it wasnt... well, let's just say that even if Nassralla himself were to blow up the dome just about all the arabs would have blamed some kind of israeli conspiration...

Lukipela:
you know, after reading the whole "cool comic booklets" thread in one go i was a bit suprised that i didn't see you on this thread ;)


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Lukipela on August 10, 2006, 09:07:18 pm
Lukipela:
you know, after reading the whole "cool comic booklets" thread in one go i was a bit suprised that i didn't see you on this thread ;)

Well, by the time I had time to read through the thread, it had shifted from opinions on the conflict to a circlejerk where everyone told others about their brilliant idea for solving the conflict, and some chatter about how to shoot down missiles.. Neither of which really interested me.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on August 10, 2006, 09:13:31 pm
Lukipela:
and your opinion is...?


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: Lukipela on August 12, 2006, 08:40:49 pm
Lukipela:
and your opinion is...?

My first opinion is that you should always use quotes. It might seem like a minor thing, but when you're used to quotes, that "" thing really makes it hard to distinguish what is your and what is someone elses.

My opinion on the war? Well,  both Lebanon and the Hezbollah were in violation of the treaty the U.N brokered. And the kidnapping of the soldiers was an act of war. The Israeli response was the logical conclusion. Whilst I feel that the Israeli atack on Hezbollah is justified, I still do not agree with all their methods. From their point of view, it is important to minimize casualties, and airstrikes are the best way to go. However, airstrikes leave room for a lot of mistakes, many of which have severly hurt their cause.

So, in short. Yes to war, no to the current strategy which leaves room for to many mistakes.



Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on August 12, 2006, 09:29:52 pm
Quote
My opinion on the war? Well,  both Lebanon and the Hezbollah were in violation of the treaty the U.N brokered. And the kidnapping of the soldiers was an act of war. The Israeli response was the logical conclusion. Whilst I feel that the Israeli atack on Hezbollah is justified, I still do not agree with all their methods. From their point of view, it is important to minimize casualties, and airstrikes are the best way to go. However, airstrikes leave room for a lot of mistakes, many of which have severly hurt their cause.

So, in short. Yes to war, no to the current strategy which leaves room for to many mistakes.

yeah well, in the end it did end up in airstrikes not being enough and we had to go back into lebanon "sad smile".... i just hope this round would end like the last one was supposed to (with the lebanese army occupying the border...


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on August 13, 2006, 07:24:12 pm
It seems like this war is going to end early tomorrow.
I saw someone on CNN say, that Israel could've done much more damage than it did. I believe that, so I'd like to conclude this with "it could've been worse".


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on August 13, 2006, 07:37:57 pm
Quote
It seems like this war is going to end early tomorrow

and a feverent AMEN to that!


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: UAF on August 16, 2006, 02:38:14 pm
So it's over... And only now did I read this thread :)
I actually had a few email exchanged with Geo on the matter in the last few days, and I think I was able to change his view a little bit.

Anyway, a few points and some information, not all equally important:

1) I think Censored 's link
http://www.freedoms.calebflerk.com/hararispeech.htm
Is a very informative article and a must read to all.

2) Some of you suggested attacking Syria and Iran, some suggest various border creating schemes. Did you know that soldiers are people too?
That it's not cool when they die?
And that's why starting a war with Syria is a bad idea.

3) Killing civilians, over reacting and such:
People die in wars, when the question is "our soldiers or their civilians" in regards of bombing areas the answer should, IMO, clearly be their civilians. Of course for the outsiders it's their soldiers or the other theirs civilians. So you see it differently. :)

But actually, we usually avoided killing their civilians in many occasions. We warned ahead of bombing, we sent in soldiers where we could have used air strikes. Hey, we could've gone on with SD's plan and occupied the area. That's much less human!

4) SD's plan:
Very naive in all fields IMO.

A) Instead of fighting just Hezbollah personal this would've caused EVERYONE in the area to fight us - when they come to destroy your home and throw you elsewhere you fight, and to the death. This means much bloodier battles, and many more civilians killed while trying to defend their houses from the evil Israelis.

B) No one in the UN would've agreed to this. The disregard of human's right by such a plan, the resulting bloodshed and the economical damage would've been enormous.

C) We have nothing to do with the evacuated people. Other countries would NOT have taken them. It's better to leave us to choke on them. Who care if those civilians suffer even more? Certainly not Syria.

D) Israel is not rich. I don't know what caused you to think that Israel is rich, but it is not. And you see people here asking why the US should financially help Israel with legitimate problems, do you think the US will finance this plan?

E) The chunk of Lebanon taken to assure that missiles won't reach Haifa is considerable. And what about other cities north to Haifa? It's not even close to be the northest city. A larger buffer zone then? Not gonna work.

F) Constantly loosing soldiers in this new buffer zone is also unacceptable. Think of them as future civilians if soldiers don't seem important to you. They'll be civilians in 3 years anyway.

5) The Sky Guard system development, FYI, has stopped in 2004. The US is not threatened by Katyusha's so why develop defenses against it? :)
And so the development of the first Laser cannon in the world stopped. :(

6) Regarding Jews living in other states and their safety there. Including US decision to ally with Israel.
A) Israel is a big red flag in front of the Muslim world's eyes, remove that and another target will be chosen - probably the US. Maybe you should finance us after all eh? :)
Also the US chose to support democracy and western lifestyle in the world, and not oppressing and regressed lifestyle. Might be a costly decision, but it is a decision to the side of what western culture define as "good" and "right".
Of course you can close your eyes and pretend that the Arab countries are not oppressive, corrupt and only deteriorating. I really mean that you can - look at France they do it all the time.

B) Here is a nice link for you
http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_78931098.htm
This is why I still feel safer in Israel. It is also why I prefer on working to make Israel safer then on making the rest of the world safer for my ethnic group.

On the side note:
Why didn't anyone tell me that Jews rule the world?! I have to hear it from people objecting to it?!
Couldn't you at least send a memo? I'm filthy rich, rules of the world, and no one tells me. This is outrageous!
I want all of you to jump on one leg 10 times as a show of loyalty to me! Bwuahaha!!!


Anyway that's it. I came in the end of the discussion anyway.
I'll just stress this article again
http://www.freedoms.calebflerk.com/hararispeech.htm

Since this is about the next incident, not the last one.

Enjoy.


Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: GeomanNL on August 16, 2006, 03:42:12 pm
Imo the hariri speech puts too little weight on the enormous influence of the west on global military, politics and economics.

Anyway, I think the war came a bit too soon, not all diplomatic possibilities were explored. Although Hizballah did stretch Israeli patience to the limit by 6 years of irritating border skirmishes.
However, for some reason diplomatic negotiations were cancelled a few years ago. I think because the US doesn't want to negotiate with what they perceive as a terrorist organization (imo it's more than that).
So, war was inevitable.

Given that war is inevitable, I think that indeed, Israel did a lot to minimize casualties.
It warned people in advance.
It also didn't rely entirely on long-range attacks, but also on incursion mission.

However, I do think that the war did an enormous amount of damage to Lebanese and Israeli economies (billions of dollars).
Also, I think this war was very bad public relations for the "west" and especially for the US and Israel. I hope this won't have severe impact on the longer term (after all, arab countries own a lot of oil which the west needs). Fortunately, the war ended fairly soon, so hopefully this damage is limited.



Title: Re: War in the middle east
Post by: AnotherW on August 16, 2006, 11:18:30 pm
well i was going to back down and let this topic die out since it went really quiet but since there was something i was itching to post and this topic woke up on it's own...

chck this out
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

and an old favorite (pallywood, if anyone saw it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys