H_B Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The irony here is that each side is absolutely gung-ho about collective punishment... what an atrocious mess. Isn't it just. And with absolutely zero chance of a peaceful settlement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centralparker Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 A "fairer fight"? In what sense? Well, you are pitching an army with all the latest technology against a gang of bearded sandal-wearing blokes huddled round a rocket launcher. Overkill to say the least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, you are pitching an army with all the latest technology against a gang of bearded sandal-wearing blokes huddled round a rocket launcher.Overkill to say the least. have you seen Egypt's arsenal recently? Besides, until the 80s there was basic parity between both sides, particularly in the air, where the Israelis used Dassault Mirage III/Vs, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks against MiG23/27s - all jets of the same generation, the arabs bought a huge chunk of hardware from the soviets and very nearly beat Israel in '73. Really, the only place where Israel ahs an advantage is in the merkava Main battle Tank - and that was designed and built in Israel. go figure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, you are pitching an army with all the latest technology against a gang of bearded sandal-wearing blokes huddled round a rocket launcher. You are confusing Hamas guerillas with the armies of the Arab nations. In short, you don't know what you are talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centralparker Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 You are confusing Hamas guerillas with the armies of the Arab nations. In short, you don't know what you are talking about. But that's who Israel are fighting against. My original point remains correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 But that's who Israel are fighting against.My original point remains correct. Umm they are now, but they weren't before. And in what way would a nation state like Israel's army against Hamas guerillas be in any way a "fair fight" even without American generosity? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centralparker Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) And in what way would a nation state like Israel's army against Hamas guerillas be in any way a "fair fight" even without American generosity? The Hamas rockets aren't a serious military threat to Israel....more of an annoyance. Yes, people have died and action must be taken, but the response does seem disproportionate to the scale of the original problem. Edited January 6, 2009 by centralparker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The Hamas rockets aren't a serious military threat to Israel....more of an annoyance. Yes, people have died and action must be taken, but the response does seem disproportionate to the scale of the original problem. It is disproportianate. That's probably the point. There hasn't been an israeli-Arab war for sometime now, thus everyone thinks it's an impossibility. It is never considered that the Israelis act the way they do to discourage agression from the Arab nations.... That a sign of weakness now could inspire nations like Syria to ocnsider armed action again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The Hamas rockets aren't a serious military threat to Israel Who says they are? The Manchester bombing by the IRA wasn't a serious military problem for the UK either. That's kindof the point to terrorist activity - it just inconveniences/endangers private citizens, not nation states. And you have completely changed your original point, which was ludicrous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Israel fought several wars against Arab armies during the first three decades of it's existence and emerged the clear victor in every one. The Six Day war is one of the most stunning military victories in modern history - Israel defeating several far larger countries and capturing territory many times its size in less than a week. Since then those in the region opposed to Israel have stopped short of directly attacking it. Off the top of my head the last attack on Israeli territory attributal to a state was when Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Israel during the Gulf War. The violence against Israel has been on the part of non-state actors, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah. Military victory in these circumstances is far more difficult, as witnessed by the inconclusive Lebanon War - Israel found engaging Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon difficult and the main achievement from the conflict was the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in the area previously controlled by Israel's enemies. The fallout in Israel suggests that the public don't consider that an acceptable price of a war that saw dozens of Israeli soldiers killed, although Hezbollah rocket attacks have stopped (at least for now). Politically these conflicts are difficult for Israel, or any other state fighting against non-staet actors. Use of overwhelming force can lead to huge civilian casualties, which is undesirable for most states, although not all. When Russia was faced with a guerrila conflict against Chechen rebels in Grozny they launched a giant bombardment of the city, killing thousands of civilians. However, that situation differs significantly from Israels - in political terms Israel needs more support and is under greater scrutiny than the Russians. So, Israel attempts to use targetted force, which while disrupting it's enemies may not actually achieve their goals. Currently the level of casualties is running at 70-80% combatants. Given the population density of Gaza this suggests that the IDF and IAF are carefully targetting their strikes. The issue with this approach is that it may not prove to obtain the military results that Israel looks for - rockets are still being fired at Israeli towns even as the fighting rages, suggesting that the capability of militants in Gaza to launch attacks hasn't been ended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Blair talking up the chances of a cease fire. Trying to persuade the Egyptians to close of tunnels into Gazza.Hoping to cut of supplies etc and therefore make a chance of talks/ peace succeed. Lets hope Jaw jaw works. My concern is that Israel will push hard to maximise its actions if it sees a cease fire in the offing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centralparker Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just heard that an Israeli air-strike has killed 40 people in a United Nations school. They sure won't win hearts and minds with this approach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just heard that an Israeli air-strike has killed 40 people in a United Nations school.They sure won't win hearts and minds with this approach. Terrible news.Its is hard to put into to words what people must be feeling. This is tragic every effort must be made to get the parties around the table.This will make it harder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Terrible news.Its is hard to put into to words what people must be feeling. In pieces? Anyway, this sort of incident has been discussed before on here. Apparently its acceptable collatoral damage, because blowing up civillians is the way to secure peace! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudafed Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 anyone doubting the influence of the Jewish/Israeli lobby in US politics should watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 In pieces?Anyway, this sort of incident has been discussed before on here. Apparently its acceptable collatoral damage, because blowing up civillians is the way to secure peace! as i pointed out before thankfully when a rocket landed in a school in israel,the school was closed,it works both ways 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudafed Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 and if anyone does actually watch it you should do that google search for "seven Jewish Americans" that they recommend at the end, it's truly amazing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centre Stand Hero Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just heard that an Israeli air-strike has killed 40 people in a United Nations school.They sure won't win hearts and minds with this approach. I don't think they care, fucking animals 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 I know some people would like to forget this whole mess and let the Israelis get on with their final solution, but saw this article today, which is interesting. Part of the final solution? The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it "one of the gravest incidents" since the beginning of the offensive. "According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors," the OCHA report said. "Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30." The UN said those who survived and were able walked 2km to the main north-south road to be transported to hospital in civilian vehicles. "Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," the report said. BBC.adverts.show("storyprintsponsorship"); Presumably this is more "collatoral damage" and can safely be dismissed as unimportant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I know some people would like to forget this whole mess and let the Israelis get on with their final solution, but saw this article today, which is interesting.Part of the final solution? Presumably this is more "collatoral damage" and can safely be dismissed as unimportant? if israel were wiping everybody out,why did they wait 24hrs before shelling it? a lot could have happened in that 24hrs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.