Author
|
Topic: War in the middle east (Read 15183 times)
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 72
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 167
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
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 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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.
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.
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.
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 
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.
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?)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 07:28:26 pm by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 11:09:48 pm by distant watcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 167
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 29, 2006, 12:48:01 am by GeomanNL »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
