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

What do you think about Mideast crisis

This topic is 4617 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

Quote:
Original post by Kevinator
How?

Nuclear fallout, for one? The as-yet-undiscovered and extremely uncertain environmental effects of nuclear bomb detonation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by Ravuya
Quote:
Original post by Kevinator
How?

Nuclear fallout, for one? The as-yet-undiscovered and extremely uncertain environmental effects of nuclear bomb detonation?

though if you have stock in ethonal or bio-deassle fuel youl be sitting pretty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we detonated multiple nuclear bombs inside our own country without enormous detrimental effects, so I have a hard time believing a nuclear detonation on the other side of the planet is going to drastically affect me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kevinator
Well, we detonated multiple nuclear bombs inside our own country without enormous detrimental effects, so I have a hard time believing a nuclear detonation on the other side of the planet is going to drastically affect me.

You'd be surprised. Israel feeds its bombs a lot of steak and beans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
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.


It wasn't an act of war then and it isn't now. If Isreal believed it to be an act of war, then it should have officially declared war on Lebanon and proceeded forward from there. It wouldn't have bothered me much if Israel had responded with artillery barrages on Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon, but bombing civilian infrastructure in Beirut followed with a naval blockade of the entire country - that most certainly is an act of war. I have no doubt that Israel felt that with Syrian troops withdrawn and with a compliant President in the Whitehouse it could act with impunity. I don't see how they could believe that there was a reduced chance of the conflict spiraling out of control given their actions in Gaza, the insurgency in Iraq and the ongoing sabre rattling against Iran. As I've said before, it looks to me that this is how Israel will engineer a war between the United States and Iran.

Get ready for the price of oil to rocket past $100/barrel...

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
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.


Of course, it's not Israel's fault. It's never Israel's fault. Israel is a little angel, it could never do anything wrong... [dead] Yes, Lebanon couldn't control Hezbollah, it's still rebuilding after two decades of civil strife, war and occupation. To crackdown on Hezbollah would upset the political balance there and threaten to disrupt the progress they've been making rebuilding their country. Lebanon and pretty much the rest of the world don't agree with you. As the New York Times points out in this editorial supporting Israel, Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out. Check out the headlines from around the world listed at the bottom of this World Opinion Roundup from the WaPo. Australia, India, Germany, Britain, Russia, El Salvador - they all describe Israel as the aggressor.

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
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.


Another round of Lebanese civil war won't be any better for Israel today that it was 30 years ago when it spilled over into Israel prompting an invasion and occupation. Looks like this time Israel's going to jump straight to the invasion and occupation because even though Israel claims it's not going to occupy Lebanon again, if it invades, what other option will it have? Syria looks likely to respond militarily to an invasion of Lebanon and then Israel will have to protect it's supply lines and on and on.

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
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.


It took 80 years for the troubles in Ireland to subside. Britain didn't bomb Ireland because it recognized that escalating the conflict would have caused more problems than it would have solved. To bad Israel didn't learn from Britain in that regard. In comparing this situation to Chechnya, you're setting the bar extremely low to make it easy to support the claim that Israel is showing restraint. With scores of Lebanese civilians dead and at least a hundred million dollars in damage probably done so far, such claims are spurious.

Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
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.


I understand what you're saying it's just that it's wrong. Mexico pays lip service to participating in the drug war, but it just tags along for the ride. But more to the point of this discussion, while you're right about not controlling Hezbollah, you're wrong about Lebanon not being willing to be a partner in maintaining stability in the region. Check this out: Israel claims Beirut 'secretly backs' its actions. Now that's chutzpah. They want us to bomb their infrastructure and set them back another decade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
It wasn't an act of war then and it isn't now. If Isreal believed it to be an act of war, then it should have officially declared war on Lebanon and proceeded forward from there.

I don't recall any peace treaties between Israel and Lebanon or Syria. The war has never stopped. For the past six years we've been in a sort cease fire, barring the ocassional Hizballah attack followed by artillery fire (and sometimes some limited air strikes) from Israel. During those six years Hizballah militants spread themselves all over the border with the Lebanese governments sitting idly by. Whether they were unwilling or unable to do something is irrelevant to people living in northen Israel. Israel can't allow to have a terrorist group running free on it's borders like that. The occupation was hell, but back then Hizballah didn't have the capability to attack Israel with they force they have in the past few days. And the main reason to retaliate against Lebanon as a whole is to try to avoid the need for another permanent occupation.

As far as the airports bombing and the naval blockade - that's military strategy 101: cut the enemy's weapon supply lines ASAP.

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Yes, Lebanon couldn't control Hezbollah, it's still rebuilding after two decades of civil strife, war and occupation. To crackdown on Hezbollah would upset the political balance there and threaten to disrupt the progress they've been making rebuilding their country.

But Lebanon isn't the one paying the price for their unability to control their extremists. Or at least it wasn't, until they allowed said extremists to drag them into war.

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
Another round of Lebanese civil war won't be any better for Israel today that it was 30 years ago when it spilled over into Israel prompting an invasion and occupation. Looks like this time Israel's going to jump straight to the invasion and occupation because even though Israel claims it's not going to occupy Lebanon again, if it invades, what other option will it have? Syria looks likely to respond militarily to an invasion of Lebanon and then Israel will have to protect it's supply lines and on and on.

I have a feeling you'll start seeing things getting blown up in Syria pretty soon. Maybe in a week or two.

shmoove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by shmoove
I have a feeling you'll start seeing things getting blown up in Syria pretty soon. Maybe in a week or two.

since lebanon has no reasonable military anyways and also has no way to stop hisbollah, dragging in other countries is inevitable if they don't want their whole country bombed back for a few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Quote:
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.
It wasn't an act of war then and it isn't now. If Isreal believed it to be an act of war, then it should have officially declared war on Lebanon and proceeded forward from there. It wouldn't have bothered me much if Israel had responded with artillery barrages on Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon, but bombing civilian infrastructure in Beirut followed with a naval blockade of the entire country - that most certainly is an act of war. I have no doubt that Israel felt that with Syrian troops withdrawn and with a compliant President in the Whitehouse it could act with impunity. I don't see how they could believe that there was a reduced chance of the conflict spiraling out of control given their actions in Gaza, the insurgency in Iraq and the ongoing sabre rattling against Iran. As I've said before, it looks to me that this is how Israel will engineer a war between the United States and Iran.

What do you mean it isn't an act of war? Going into a country and killing/capturing uniform soldiers is practically the definition of an act of war. Your logic seems to be it isn't an act of war now because Israel didn't treat it as one a few years ago. By that logic, if Iraq were to launch a barrage of scud missiles at Israel, then Israel couldn't treat it as an act of war because they didn't treat it as an act of war when it happened last time.

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Of course, it's not Israel's fault. It's never Israel's fault. Israel is a little angel, it could never do anything wrong... Yes, Lebanon couldn't control Hezbollah, it's still rebuilding after two decades of civil strife, war and occupation. To crackdown on Hezbollah would upset the political balance there and threaten to disrupt the progress they've been making rebuilding their country. Lebanon and pretty much the rest of the world don't agree with you. As the New York Times points out in this editorial supporting Israel, Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out. Check out the headlines from around the world listed at the bottom of this World Opinion Roundup from the WaPo. Australia, India, Germany, Britain, Russia, El Salvador - they all describe Israel as the aggressor.

Lebanon is in a tough spot. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the fact is they didn't cooperate with Israel. There's no arguing otherwise. They didn't fulfill their side of the bargain, or take up their responsibilities in controlling Hezbollah. Israel gave them a chance. Israel gave them many chances. Lebanon failed all of them. Now Hezbollah decided to do something incredibly stupid and dragged both Lebanon and Israel into a war. I have no doubt the Lebanese are pissed at Israel for the assault. But I equally have no doubt most Lebanese, and particularly the Lebanese government, are pissed at Hezbollah for dragging the whole country into a war.

Quote:
It took 80 years for the troubles in Ireland to subside. Britain didn't bomb Ireland because it recognized that escalating the conflict would have caused more problems than it would have solved. To bad Israel didn't learn from Britain in that regard. In comparing this situation to Chechnya, you're setting the bar extremely low to make it easy to support the claim that Israel is showing restraint. With scores of Lebanese civilians dead and at least a hundred million dollars in damage probably done so far, such claims are spurious.
Ireland was a partner in handling the problem. That's why Britain didn't need to bomb Ireland. The IRA didn't control part of the country, able to rival the rest of Ireland in the case of a conflict. If that were the case, and the IRA decided to attack Britain and Ireland stood by idly, I would support a British assault. Now as far as Chechnya, and most conflicts in the world, I'm glad you understand that Israel is showing restraint in comparison.

Quote:
I understand what you're saying it's just that it's wrong. Mexico pays lip service to participating in the drug war, but it just tags along for the ride. But more to the point of this discussion, while you're right about not controlling Hezbollah, you're wrong about Lebanon not being willing to be a partner in maintaining stability in the region.
I'm not too familiar with Mexico's part in the drug war. I do know that if the Mexicans were not taking up their responsibility and the US really cared about it, the US could press Mexico through other diplomatic means first (such as threatening a cease of exports and imports, for an example of a very extreme measure). In the case of Israel and Lebanon, diplomatic pressue is obviously not a possibility. And Lebanon is not a willing partner, as has already been proven by many years of inaction. Secretly supporting Israel while maintaining inaction, whether true or not, would only make them a supporting observer, not a partner interested in getting its hands dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
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.

How about those that DID do it?
The Germans f.i.
Started wars through BS reasons.
Liquidated towns because of partisans.
The former vicims are becoming the new aggressors.

When the 'bad guys' do it everyone cries, but let the hypocrits do it... make me friggn sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Wutalife37
What do you mean it isn't an act of war? Going into a country and killing/capturing uniform soldiers is practically the definition of an act of war.

Only if it's done by someone representing another country. If I go kill an American soldier because I'm bored, that's not an act of war, it's simply a crime. if I do it because my government told me to, it's an act of war.

Quote:

Lebanon is in a tough spot. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the fact is they didn't cooperate with Israel. There's no arguing otherwise.

Israel has never wanted cooperation. Israel has never wanted to be friends and talk about the problems. The furthest Israel has ever stretched its hands is to ask for peace *on their terms*. Saying "We'll stop fighting you if you do as we say" isn't very constructive, but I don't recall Israel ever going further than that. Of course, I'm not saying any other countries involved are any better...
I Lebanon didn't cooperate with Israel, no. But Israel sure as hell didn't cooperate with Lebanon either. I guess it's symptomatic of the whole mess that only *one* side is expected to cooperate. Israel expects other countries to cooperate with them, without Israel having to meet any compromises or requirements from their counterparts, without having to do any cooperating themselves. And of course it seems to be pretty much the same on the other side.

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!