Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Toni Petrina

What do you think about Mideast crisis

This topic is 4615 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -- Gandhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
While we're discussing conspiracy, how about this:

Bush is using Israel to start a war with Iran by attacking nations that will draw Iran into a conflict with Israel, at which point we come in to help an ally?

It seems more plausible than going to war over three soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Jacques Chirac made the most inteligent speach so far. The whole think began because Israel started a collective punishment with a disproportionate reaction after the kiddnap of that soldier. The've bombed even schools in Gaza ffs.

You can't hide forever in made phrases like "we don't negotiate with terrorists". You have to use some good sense sometimes. Isreal have totaly overreated now. Bombing power plants and that airport? If they were concerned in taking the terrorists, shouldn't they let the good and worker people get out of the country? Now they bomb the airports and the infrastructure of the country, forcing people to remain in that nightmare, this is evil i say.

In my view Israel is trying to transmit a message for the whole arabic people. "We own this lands because we have powerfull friends and weapons so you shut up because we do what we want here". Cowardish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by SticksandStones
While we're discussing conspiracy, how about this:

Bush is using Israel to start a war with Iran by attacking nations that will draw Iran into a conflict with Israel, at which point we come in to help an ally?

It seems more plausible than going to war over three soldiers.


And it's all been orchestrated by Karl Rove to maintain GOP control of Congress in the fall elections?

I don't think Bush is that smart. He's certainly foolish enough, but I don't think he's smart enough to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Quote:
Original post by SticksandStones
While we're discussing conspiracy, how about this:

Bush is using Israel to start a war with Iran by attacking nations that will draw Iran into a conflict with Israel, at which point we come in to help an ally?

It seems more plausible than going to war over three soldiers.


And it's all been orchestrated by Karl Rove to maintain GOP control of Congress in the fall elections?

I don't think Bush is that smart. He's certainly foolish enough, but I don't think he's smart enough to pull it off.


That's why I called it a conspiracy theory [grin]


On-topic: Israel needs to stop acting like a school yard bully. Bush said we won't tolerate disruptions to peace, so why aren't we sanctioning Israel? Why aren't we condemning them? We condemned NK for launching missles into the sea, why aren't we condemning Israel for KILLING PEOPLE? And every other nation involved too, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Quote:
Israel bombed the Beirut airport after hezbollah entered Israeli territory and killed/captured Israeli soldiers. Would you prefer that to be the act of war?


That would make for a flimsy act of war - especially when contrasted with blowing up an airport, television stations, cell phone towers, electric power plants and apartment buildings.
I don't know how you can seriously say the killing and capturing of Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil is a flimsy act of war.

Quote:
So why didn't Israel seek to work with Lebanon to resolve the problem?
Because Israel knows just as well as you and I know that Lebanon can't and won't resolve the problem willingly. Part of the pull-out agreement was that Lebanon would patrol the borders and keep things under control. They didn't. They haven't tried to stop Hezbollah after rocket attacks against Israel. Lebanon is simply, at this time, not a potential partner.

Quote:
You're saying that a rekindling of the civil war in Lebanon would be a good goal.
Hopefully civil war will be avoided. With the Syrians out (mostly), Lebanon should be able to fill the vacuum once Israel dislodges Hezbollah. If Israel decides to cut short their offensive due to international pressure, at least Lebanon will keep a tighter grip on Hezbollah's leash.

Quote:
I provided an example of how Israel responded in the past. How about you provide some examples of other countries and how they would respond before you start pushing complete canards about Israeli restraint and making feeble attempts to change the subject to Africa.

Why didn't Britain occupy Ireland? Why didn't India occupy Sri Lanka? Why didn't Spain occupy the Basque lands? Let's hear your list.
First of all, I'm not talking about occupying. Israel shouldn't reoccupy southern Lebanon, and they probably won't need to anyway if things work out. But if you are wondering how other countries would respond in a similar situation, I would say most countries would have simply steam-rolled Lebanon and personally ensured that Hezbollah stays dead. Take a look at Russia in Chechnya, or virtually any African nation.


Quote:
I'm really not understanding how bombing a Beirut airport is justification for retaliating against a foreign power in a sovereign country (ie. Hezbollah [= foreign power] in Lebanon [=sovereign country]). If you wanted to get at Hezbollah then attacks Hezbollah property and areas and armanent. Lebanese suburbs, power plants, and airports which are all civilian not Bezbollah-controlled are not fair and legitimate targets.
There are two reasons. First, we're not in the Napoleonic age anymore. Wars aren't conducted in neat little lines, with soldiers firing at each other in open fields. Hezbollah isn't out in the open saying "come get us". They are in populated areas, because they know they are safest there.

Second, it is necessary for Lebanon to understand that they can't simply look away from this whole event. Lebanon's government line has been "we didn't attack you, so we're not responsible". But in fact it is their responsibility to control what happens in their nation. Hitting Lebanese targets sends a clear message that Lebanon needs to put Hezbollah on a leash, or Lebanon as a whole will have to pay. If Israel didn't hit those targets, Lebanon could continue ignoring their responsibility, and just let Hezbollah and Israel battle it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by SticksandStones
On-topic: Israel needs to stop acting like a school yard bully. Bush said we won't tolerate disruptions to peace, so why aren't we sanctioning Israel? Why aren't we condemning them? We condemned NK for launching missles into the sea, why aren't we condemning Israel for KILLING PEOPLE? And every other nation involved too, for that matter.


It's not a secret that sanctions aren't made because a o rocket in the sea... USA will never oppose to Israel, they are the strategic friends in the region.

If you dig a little deeper, always has something to do with oil...

PS: About Bush beeing clever enough, i don't think he needs. He have people to think for him. About the conspiracy thing, well, something we cant confidently state ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
Quote:
Quote:
Israel bombed the Beirut airport after hezbollah entered Israeli territory and killed/captured Israeli soldiers. Would you prefer that to be the act of war?

That would make for a flimsy act of war - especially when contrasted with blowing up an airport, television stations, cell phone towers, electric power plants and apartment buildings.
I don't know how you can seriously say the killing and capturing of Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil is a flimsy act of war.


It happened in 2000 and Israel didn't treat it as an act of war. In fact, with that episode, Hezbollah abducted three soldiers and two civilians for a total of 5 Israelis and Israel responded by negotiating for their release rather than starting a war. What was different back then? It wasn't that long ago. How do you account for that? Were they exercising restraint then and now they are tired of coddling the terrorists - is that it?

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
Quote:
So why didn't Israel seek to work with Lebanon to resolve the problem?
Because Israel knows just as well as you and I know that Lebanon can't and won't resolve the problem willingly. Part of the pull-out agreement was that Lebanon would patrol the borders and keep things under control. They didn't. They haven't tried to stop Hezbollah after rocket attacks against Israel. Lebanon is simply, at this time, not a potential partner.


So Israel wasn't willing to work with Lebanon. That disappoints me but it doesn't surprise me. I don't see Lebanon trying to stop Hezbollah now. In fact, I see it encouraging them given the attacks on Beirut.

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
Quote:
You're saying that a rekindling of the civil war in Lebanon would be a good goal.
Hopefully civil war will be avoided. With the Syrians out (mostly), Lebanon should be able to fill the vacuum once Israel dislodges Hezbollah. If Israel decides to cut short their offensive due to international pressure, at least Lebanon will keep a tighter grip on Hezbollah's leash.


That is some wishful and completely unrealistic thinking. Hezbollah holds 23 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese Parliament and during the Cedar Revolution was able to fill the streets of Beirut with somewhere between 200,000 to 1.5 million people depending on who you ask [1].

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
Quote:
I provided an example of how Israel responded in the past. How about you provide some examples of other countries and how they would respond before you start pushing complete canards about Israeli restraint and making feeble attempts to change the subject to Africa.

Why didn't Britain occupy Ireland? Why didn't India occupy Sri Lanka? Why didn't Spain occupy the Basque lands? Let's hear your list.
First of all, I'm not talking about occupying. Israel shouldn't reoccupy southern Lebanon, and they probably won't need to anyway if things work out. But if you are wondering how other countries would respond in a similar situation, I would say most countries would have simply steam-rolled Lebanon and personally ensured that Hezbollah stays dead. Take a look at Russia in Chechnya, or virtually any African nation.


So why didn't Britain bomb Ireland? destroy airports, power plants and the like? If you haven't figured it out, I'm calling your bluff. So you think Israel should do to Beirut what Russia twice did to Grozny? And you think that the military actions of African nations are something to be emulated? Ok. I think it's clear where you are coming from. I guess my earlier remark about bloodlust was spot on.

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
Quote:
I'm really not understanding how bombing a Beirut airport is justification for retaliating against a foreign power in a sovereign country (ie. Hezbollah [= foreign power] in Lebanon [=sovereign country]). If you wanted to get at Hezbollah then attacks Hezbollah property and areas and armanent. Lebanese suburbs, power plants, and airports which are all civilian not Bezbollah-controlled are not fair and legitimate targets.
There are two reasons. First, we're not in the Napoleonic age anymore. Wars aren't conducted in neat little lines, with soldiers firing at each other in open fields. Hezbollah isn't out in the open saying "come get us". They are in populated areas, because they know they are safest there.

Second, it is necessary for Lebanon to understand that they can't simply look away from this whole event. Lebanon's government line has been "we didn't attack you, so we're not responsible". But in fact it is their responsibility to control what happens in their nation. Hitting Lebanese targets sends a clear message that Lebanon needs to put Hezbollah on a leash, or Lebanon as a whole will have to pay. If Israel didn't hit those targets, Lebanon could continue ignoring their responsibility, and just let Hezbollah and Israel battle it out.


According to this logic, the United States should currently be at war with Mexico because for years now the Mexican government has been unable to control narcotics traffickers on the border - complete with episodes of kidnapping and murdering Americans - including a DEA agent. Let's see how that would look: Hitting Mexican targets sends a clear message that Mexico needs to put it's narco-terrorists on a leash or at least that Mexico as a whole will have to pay. If the United States didn't hit those targets, Mexico could continue ignoring it's responsibilities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how you can seriously say the killing and capturing of Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil is a flimsy act of war.

It happened in 2000 and Israel didn't treat it as an act of war. In fact, with that episode, Hezbollah abducted three soldiers and two civilians for a total of 5 Israelis and Israel responded by negotiating for their release rather than starting a war. What was different back then? It wasn't that long ago. How do you account for that? Were they exercising restraint then and now they are tired of coddling the terrorists - is that it?

It was an act of war then and it is an act of war now. How Israel chooses to respond is its decision, but treating it as an act of war is justified. I don't know why Israel chose this time to act more aggressively. If I had to guess, I'd say they feel that with less Syrian influence the Lebanese government could better handle the border if Israel struck a blow Hezbollah, and that there is a reduced chance of the conflict spiraling out of control.

Quote:
So Israel wasn't willing to work with Lebanon. That disappoints me but it doesn't surprise me. I don't see Lebanon trying to stop Hezbollah now. In fact, I see it encouraging them given the attacks on Beirut.
I think it's more like Lebanon isn't willing to work with Israel. Like I said, Lebanon agreed to patrol its borders after the pullout, and it didn't keep that agreement. Whenever Israel asked Lebanon to crack down on Hezbollah, it wouldn't do it. I don't see Lebanon encouraging Hezbollah at all. Lebanon knows Hezbollah made a huge mistake going into Israel, and Lebanon (along with Hezbollah) is going to get screwed because of it.

Quote:
Quote:
Hopefully civil war will be avoided. With the Syrians out (mostly), Lebanon should be able to fill the vacuum once Israel dislodges Hezbollah. If Israel decides to cut short their offensive due to international pressure, at least Lebanon will keep a tighter grip on Hezbollah's leash.

That is some wishful and completely unrealistic thinking. Hezbollah holds 23 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese Parliament and during the Cedar Revolution was able to fill the streets of Beirut with somewhere between 200,000 to 1.5 million people depending on who you ask
I guess we'll see how well Israel does. If nothing else Israel will make it clear that attacks on it will have serious consequences, and that Lebanon had better pick up their responsibility and keep an eye on Hezbollah.

Quote:
So why didn't Britain bomb Ireland? destroy airports, power plants and the like? If you haven't figured it out, I'm calling your bluff. So you think Israel should do to Beirut what Russia twice did to Grozny? And you think that the military actions of African nations are something to be emulated? Ok. I think it's clear where you are coming from. I guess my earlier remark about bloodlust was spot on.
If this is what you think I believe then you are missing my points. Britain didn't bomb Ireland because Ireland cooperated. I'm absolutely not saying Israel should do to Beirut what Russia did to Grozny. If you re-read what I wrote, I do not say anything like that at all. In fact, I'm praising Israel for showing more restraint than the Russians in Chechnya. I'm saying the military actions of African nations are something not to be emulated.

Quote:
According to this logic, the United States should currently be at war with Mexico because for years now the Mexican government has been unable to control narcotics traffickers on the border - complete with episodes of kidnapping and murdering Americans - including a DEA agent. Let's see how that would look: Hitting Mexican targets sends a clear message that Mexico needs to put it's narco-terrorists on a leash or at least that Mexico as a whole will have to pay. If the United States didn't hit those targets, Mexico could continue ignoring it's responsibilities...
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Mexico is a partner in the process of combating these things. Mexico is working to the best of their ability with the United States to stop these problems. Or if they aren't, I'm sure the US hasn't exhausted all of its bargaining chips yet. Lebanon is not a partner in controlling Hezbollah, and practically Israel's only bargaining chip is its military since there is no trade (or very little) between the two nations, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Ravuya
Quote:
Original post by Jovan
Hey, if they want to duke it out, then let them.

Difficulty: Israel has and said they will use nuclear warheads. That affects us.
How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!