• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Israel Gaza

jts1882 said:
North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. The first must be one of the most mad regimes in history. The latter is torn between radical islamic extremists and a military out of government control. Both have serious active disputes with neighbours.

The greatest stand-off in history was between the US and USSR, each with a ridiculous amount of nuclear weapons. The stand-off between India and Pakistan over Kashmir hasn't escalated when both have nuclear weapons, even after the Mumbai terrorist attack.

While I'd much prefer Iran not get nuclear weapons, the idea that they would use them to destroy Israel is fantasy. Iran is in a dangerous part of the world and haven't a recent history of invading neighbours. Several countries with nuclear weapons have threatened action against them so you can see why they might want them.

You could also argue that the return to a more symmetric balance of power might draw Israel to the peace table with genuine intent. As it is they know they are secure and can act with impunity, pretending to want peace talks while making sure its impossible with continued settlement building and occasional wars of intimidation. This will continue as long as the US can be manipulated.
Click to expand...

It's not confirmed that North Korea have nukes is it? For very similar reasons to Iran they really shouldn't be allowed to have them. I have a sneaky feeling that the Chinese agree, luckily,.

I disagree about Pakistan, I think the situation is worse for it.

I don't think the current situation in Iran can be compared to the cold war with much meaning behind the analogy. Mutual assured destruction was a real threat during the cold war, but I wouldn't trust it to have the same chilling effect with the current and potential future leaders of Iran. Won't go into my whole reasoning for this right now as I don't have half an hour, but religion and lack of rationality would be the main reasons. What you call fantasy they might see as a potential reality.

Problems with states like these having nukes are many, but for me the point that any foreign aid in a potential revolution (and a revolution in itself) becomes a lot more risky to the point of almost unfeasible means that the rulers gain that much more power. Just imagine Libya having nukes last summer, would NATO really be confident enough to support the uprising and in doing so pushing Gaddafi to the edge and over knowing that he was sitting there with a fudging nuclear suitcase by his desk? To me it seems like allowing these leaders nuclear weapons is almost the same as allowing them to stay in power almost indefinitely. Another problem of course is the propensity for states like these to support international terrorists. "We don't fear those that have thousands of nuclear weapons, we fear those that have one".
 
braineclipse said:
It's not confirmed that North Korea have nukes is it? For very similar reasons to Iran they really shouldn't be allowed to have them. I have a sneaky feeling that the Chinese agree, luckily,.

I disagree about Pakistan, I think the situation is worse for it.
Click to expand...

I think we know North Korea have nuclear devices but their tests have failed so they may not have function weapons andr delivery systems.

I don't think Pakistan having nuclear weapons is the cause of the low level hostilities recently, but I don't see they making things worse. It would be better if all the countries with extreme religious and ideological people in positions of influence didn't have them, but the evidence suggests its not a critical as people often claim. Is it really worth lauching wars where thousands die just to feel slightly safer in hypothetical situations.
 
jts1882 said:
I think we know North Korea have nuclear devices but their tests have failed so they may not have function weapons andr delivery systems.

I don't think Pakistan having nuclear weapons is the cause of the low level hostilities recently, but I don't see they making things worse. It would be better if all the countries with extreme religious and ideological people in positions of influence didn't have them, but the evidence suggests its not a critical as people often claim. Is it really worth lauching wars where thousands die just to feel slightly safer in hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

What was done with Iran wasn't starting a war where thousands die, it was tactical bombing of the factories/plants. Actually to make sure they kept the UN resolutions they themselves have signed and claimed to be following.
 
We talked about this in a history class that I took, and my professor offered up a good argument. One of the reasons for the endless conflict, is the fact that on the Israeli side, most of the politicians and people in charge, have a strong military background and are therefore much more likely to take a harder stance. You could probably argue something similar with the Palestinians, who have been born and raised into an environment of oppression and violence, although I hope I'm not generalizing too much.

The very few who have come along trying to seek peace, have been assassinated by hardliners, like Anwar Sadat in Egypt and Yitzhak Rabin.

It's an endless debate, with both parties to blame. Quite coincidental actually, that I'm currently reading Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler for another Uni class I'm taking, and my professor there was talking about the argument of the Jews after the Holocaust. Basically that the world stood by and watched, therefore they alone are responsible for their own destiny, and have the right to create and defend their own state by any means necessary. Rightly so? Or have they taken it to extremes?
 
Icelander: I think that is part of it, but more importantly on both sides there are the religious views.

Blame on both sides I would say.
 
braineclipse said:
Icelander: I think that is part of it, but more importantly on both sides there are the religious views.

Blame on both sides I would say.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely, that's a major factor as well.

But I just had a bit of revelation after reading the chapter in Hitler on the days leading up to the invasion of Poland. Hitler gives a speech to his top generals, outlining his reasons to act quickly:

The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging a war, it is not right that matters, but victory. Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. Eighty million people must obtain what is their right. Their existence must be made secure. The stronger man is right."
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just getting a bit carried away, and completely inappropriate, but this reminded me SO much of the situation with Israel and Palestine these last few days. Makes you wonder really, after all the evil humankind has suffered and given, why can't we all just...get along? :)
 
Icelander said:
We talked about this in a history class that I took, and my professor offered up a good argument. One of the reasons for the endless conflict, is the fact that on the Israeli side, most of the politicians and people in charge, have a strong military background and are therefore much more likely to take a harder stance. You could probably argue something similar with the Palestinians, who have been born and raised into an environment of oppression and violence, although I hope I'm not generalizing too much.
Click to expand...

I think this is wrong, quite the opposite in Israel, where the military and intelligence agencies actually evaluate the actions more carefully. They successfully argued against an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities last year (or thereabouts). Its ambitious politicians like Netanyahu in hock to the small extreme religious parties that have taken the decision to be ruthless. The orthodox jews are exempt from military service so don't have to worry about their own lives and those of their children.

Icelander said:
The very few who have come along trying to seek peace, have been assassinated by hardliners, like Anwar Sadat in Egypt and Yitzhak Rabin.
Click to expand...

That is true. And then the continuing conflict gets people voting for the more extreme parties like Likud and Hamas. They both have an interest in the continuing conflict to stay in power.
 
Throughout Operation Pillar of Defence I have remained very neutral within my extremely Zionist friends and my friends have called me anti-Zionist and given me lots of abuse.

Hamas are evil, how they can condone a bomb going off on a bus I don't know. I know it wasn't them but they still praised it, and whether you are Palestinian or Israeli no decent human being can ever agree with Hamas' actions and beliefs.
 
both sides are despicable and a threat to world peace, it doesn't matter if it's a bus bomb or a "targeted military strike" innocent people are still dying - current death toll stands at 152 palestinians and 5 israelis
 
NW5pur said:
both sides are despicable and a threat to world peace, it doesn't matter if it's a bus bomb or a "targeted military strike" innocent people are still dying - current death toll stands at 152 palestinians and 5 israelis
Click to expand...

The difference is the Israelis have no intention of killing civilians, and they have done their best to try and avoid civilian deaths. The problem is Hamas put their rocket launchers next to schools and hospitals and they have their leaders hide amongst civilians, meaning Hamas are causing civilian deaths to their own people.
 
NW5pur said:
both sides are despicable and a threat to world peace, it doesn't matter if it's a bus bomb or a "targeted military strike" innocent people are still dying - current death toll stands at 152 palestinians and 5 israelis
Click to expand...

Actually, that makes all the difference.

A military strike with civilian casualties is fighting a war. A strike purely designed to kill innocent civilians is terrorism. One's bad, the other's evil.

Think about the escalation in this conflict:

Israel take out a known terrorist in a highly accurate strike - Hamas launch rockets at civilians.

Israel take out some Hamas missile sites - Hamas launch rockets at civilians.

Israel take out some more Hamas missile sites, Hamas' supporters blow up a bus full of civilians.

Spot a pattern?
 
I'd have thought the military would have had decent intelligence and weaponary to know where civilians were?
 
Papercut said:
I'd have thought the military would have had decent intelligence and weaponary to know where civilians were?
Click to expand...

To an extent, but when your enemy uses human shields around pretty much everything the distinction is more difficult.
 
Is there any proof Hamas use han shields? Or is it just propoganda just like the targeting of civilian areas by Israel which I'm sure is also propoganda? As they say the first casualty of war is the truth. Thing I find saddest is when people can't see it from a human perspective and try justifying a sides killings due to some loyalty they believe in.
 
WhoopWhoop said:
Is there any proof Hamas use han shields? Or is it just propoganda just like the targeting of civilian areas by Israel which I'm sure is also propoganda? As they say the first casualty of war is the truth. Thing I find saddest is when people can't see it from a human perspective and try justifying a sides killings due to some loyalty they believe in.
Click to expand...

It's too soon to know this time, but it's well documented that its been done in the past a lot - in 2008 especially. Also the falsifying of civilian casualties (they fooled the BBC with at least one video) and the use of ambulances to transport terrorists/bombs shows a method of waging war that places little or no value on the people they claim to be protecting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back