Obviously Israel didn't care who was killed. They've really turned to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Printable View
Obviously Israel didn't care who was killed. They've really turned to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Seriously? You think so? I duinno... need more evidence...Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
-tg
Seems like terrorism to me. If Hamas/Hezbollah set of thousands of bombs in Israel, would you consider that an act of terrorism? Recently Israel has set off bombs in Lebanon and Iran multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Gaza is a different story, that's just a straight out invasion with a long list of crimes against humanity.
yeaaaaah... I don't know... things explode all the time. Especially with lithium batteries... They even explode mid-flight and no one's screaming terrorism...
-tg
Not sure what that even means. lithium batteries??? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Possibly sarcasm :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Maybe your right. A was struggling to make the connection between planned attacks on foreign soil and accidental battery explosions. Or who was screaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I'm really struggling with the idea that someone doesn't agree with me. Doesn't seem possible. lol
It was sarcasm... "They've really turned to terrorism." -- I read that and I thought "OH REALLLLY? You think only NOW that they have?" A more accurate (in my opinion) statement would have been "They've really turned up the terrorism."
-tg
On the one hand I can kind of admire the planning and execution that must have gone into that attack. From a logistical point of view it's actually a very impressive achievement. And, strategically, it has shut down the communications of Hezbollah's leadership in a single (or pair of) actions.
On the other hand, good God is that irresponsible! The danger to innocent passers by is bad enough but imagine if e.g. one had gone off on a plane. The results could have been horrific.
Killing two or three hundred more people by bringing down a plane wouldn't even raise Israels body count by 1% over the past year.
Looks like Israel is seeking to expand the conflicts (it's actually war but no one want to call it that). Taking on Hamas/Hezbollah/Lebanon all at once in a full scale war seems risky. Iran and the US will be significant wild cards.
I personally think that "bibi" wants to widen the war and suck the US right into it. After they blew up the pagers they went after the radios, the last 150 Lebanon air strikes are going after them trying to use phones again. I wonder if that was part of the the plan from the start or a "bonus".Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
History repeats itself:
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...gs_ivs=1#tts=0Quote:
The Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon lasted for eighteen years, from 1982 until 2000. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in response to attacks from southern Lebanon by Palestinian militants.
Today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/?relo...=1727734989795Quote:
Israel planning an imminent limited ground operation in Lebanon, U.S. official says
Paraphrasing...Biden keeps going "enough, cease fire, enough, cease fire". Netanyahu says "you are a lame duck, I'm in war mode". He knows the US is his war "puppet" and he is going for it.
If the war escalates US can go full force helping them and that would be an excuse to postpone the elections, or a nation at war gathers around it's leader so might get more votes, just enough to win the elections.
But I probably have a devious mind :eek:
It certainly wouldn't postpone the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
It might change a few votes but which way. Being at war can either get you votes or loose you votes. In this case my guess is it would loose the incumbent votes. Going to war again in the middle east isn't a popular idea.
Maybe, maybe not, you have to sell it smart, if you decide to go for it.
I don't think any US president is willing to put boots on the ground for this. Planes in the air, perhaps, but not boots on the ground.
That the elections would be postponed would just never happen. At least not in this cycle. The conflict can't help the current leader because he isn't running.
It wouldn't postpone the US election but that's not the target. Postponing the deadline when Netanyahu has to call an election... well that's a different story.
I think that could be read both ways, or at least I did. But I have been wrong before...Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to guess what others had meant by their posts here. My comment's purely to do with why I think Netanyahu is pursuing the course he is.
I, too, feel that the main driver of what Israel is doing is for Netanyahu to avoid facing the voters.
If that is true he is a real piece of scum, up there with Putin when it come to civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
US support him so the scum of my enemy is my kinda scum. If that is true...
Yeah, unfortunately, we've often been like that. It was probably worse during the cold war, but not a whole lot worse.
I didn't think of that when I posted but, yes, that makes the US scum for suppling the weapons and supporting it. From day one literally. The US is the first nation to recognize redrawing the map, eighty years ago?, and has been involved, ready to go to war to support the newly declared nation, since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It is disappointing the way the US aids Israel without much regard to their actions. I understand not to take military action against Israel, no one in NATO has had the courage to do that. But withholding aid wouldn't take much courage. Instead about the most any of the NATO countries will do is say, no no you shouldn't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I'm not quite as condemning. I think for most of the history of Modern day Israel, providing them with the support they needed was the right thing to do. Without it you'd have seen a genocide going in the other direction as the surrounding states would have wiped it out. I don't think that's the situation now though and a change in foreign policy is overdue.Quote:
yes, that makes the US scum for suppling the weapons and supporting it
Now there I'm with you. You've only got to listen to him and his Generals speak to realise they simply don't view Palestinians (or Lebanese for that matter) as people.Quote:
If that is true he is a real piece of scum, up there with Putin when it come to civilians.
I also have to disagree with some of that. The US disregarded the lives of the people that were already living there and allowed the taking of their land. When they fight back we say "providing them with the support they needed was the right thing to do"? And saying the Jews were there first doesn't fly with me. The Palestinians were living there at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I agree with that bit except that it wasn't just the US. Us Brits are just as guilty on that bit. So is most of Europe.Quote:
The US disregarded the lives of the people that were already living there
This bit I hear often and I feel it's an incomplete picture. Both Jews and Muslims (and Christians to a lesser extent) had been living in the area for centuries. "Israelis" and "Palestinians" had not been living there because neither state existed prior to WW2. At best they were amorphous and overlapping regions subsumed into the Ottoman Empire.Quote:
saying the Jews were there first doesn't fly with me. The Palestinians were living there at the time.
Indeed, depending on how you view things you can argue that the modern state of Israel precedes the modern state of Palestine since Palestine wasn't recognised as a State until the 80s (88, I think from memory). Again, though, this would be an incomplete picture as it did exist as an identity. That's a bit of an amorphous concept though. It certainly doesn't make the case that Israel's right of existence should, in any way, trump Palestine's but it does serve to illustrate how muddy the socio politics of the area are.
What I do think you can argue is that the mass importation of displaced Jews to the area was always going to be problematic and was going to lead to conflict. You could argue that it shouldn't have been done at all but you should consider what better option you'd have advocated for in a post holocaust world - I honestly don't have a better answer, just a whole bunch of equally bad ones. Assuming you accept it was the best of a set of bad options I think you can definitely argue that the West was horribly cavalier in its implementation and just kicked a lethal can down the road.
I also think that you can (and should) argue that, post the establishment of Israel, it's continued expansion via illegal settlement has been morally wrong and is something we should have been loudly condemning for at least 50 years.
Very true and I admit I over simplify the whole issue. It has many layers and politics were involved I'm not up on. It sure is a bloody mess now though and I only see it getting worse. I think that Israel is going to take actions any day now that they know will force the US to fight for them. Maybe Iranian oil fields or nuclear weapons facilities.
Well, I tend to over nuance this issue so let's call it a draw. I do think this is an issue where nuance matters but sometimes I stop seeing the forest for the trees. To be clear, I think that Israel has been a far greater villain in the history of this region that Palestine has. Whether it's been a greater villain than Iran - I'm not so sure.Quote:
I over simplify the whole issue
I don't think so but I'm really not confident on that. I certainly think we're looking at a ground invasion of Lebanon (which could get REALLY bloody given Hezbollah's numbers and combat experience) and I suspect rocket/air strikes on Iran. And then there'll be the ensuing reprisals and so on. Whether Iran and Israel will engage with each other on the ground is up for debate and I don't think conflict between Iran and Israel will be enough to draw the US into direct conflict - Israel can stand up on it's own in that scenario, albeit likely at a high cost in men and materials.Quote:
I think that Israel is going to take actions any day now that they know will force the US to fight for them.
But
A lot depends on the reaction of the other Islamic states in the region. At the moment most of the noises are in support of Israel rather than Iran and a lot of the Islamic states have really had enough of Iran, particularly it's involvement in Syria. If that holds they'll stay out of it which will probably isolate the conflict to Israel and Iran. But it's a highly delicate situation and if Israel crosses any lines that those states have set for themselves (no idea what those lines would be), they could easily switch and then Israel could be genuinely threatened. In that case, yeah, I think the US would very likely step in on Israel's side. Really not a comfortable thought.
Israel and Iran really don't share much of a border. Not much at all, really. In fact, to have a ground war between the two, some other country would have to be involved. To have a real air war between the two, some other country would have to be involved (or totally ignore all the stuff going on above them), and while they could have a naval engagement, neither side is really equipped for such a fight.
I'm thinking, if they have a ground war, it'll take place in Lebanon. E.g. Israel invades Southern Lebanon in response to the recent Hezbollah attacks (quite likely, I think), Iran posts troops to Lebanon in defence (unlikely, I think). I think we're actually far more likely to see a proxy ground war and the US would be unlikely to get drawn into that.
Lebanon does seem like the only likely location. Jordan has managed to stay out of this conflict. Good for them.
The Shahab-3 is based on the North Korean missile Nodong. It has a range of about 900 kilometers (560 miles). It has a nominal payload of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). An improved version of the Shahab-3, renamed the Ghadr-1, began flight testing in 2004. Several variants of the GHADR-1 have appeared, each slightly modified to improve reliability and ease of operation. Most of Iran's Shahab-3 missiles are believed to have been converted into Ghadr missiles. Ghadr extended Iran's range to about 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles).
Russia's GDP is $2 trillion, Israel's is $500 billion, Iran's is $400 billion.
Russia does not have so many capabilities to launch 400 missiles at the same time.
When will the world war end? I feel that it may last for 5 to 10 years.
Eventually, it becomes more and more difficult and unstable to make money.In particular, it has a greater impact on foreign trade.
Maybe from Trump to Biden, they cannot control the outcome of this war. They may even, ah, hope that the war will last as long as possible.
The most unsuccessful approach when there is a ground war? Unless they are ready to take over in full, and then those two countries merge into one.The best forces, like the German Blitzkrieg, could blow up a city with a plane, and they surrendered. Now it's a missile attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The war between Russia and Ukraine is mainly about Ukraine's use of various drones or at sea. Ghost missile.
Drones are too small, and it's very expensive for you to use interceptors. There is no specific interception system for UAVs.
So if a Russian aircraft carrier goes to the Black Sea, it may be sunk by Ukrainian drones or some small artillery shells.
The United States is hoping that the Middle East and Russia will become more and more chaotic. In the end, only the United States, Britain, Germany, France and China are relatively safe in the world, and other places are full of wars.Of course, Canada is also very safe.
Which country's economy will be set back 30 years by war? The position of the United States as the world hegemony is becoming more and more stable.
Even if everyone joins NATO, it may be that 150 countries join NATO in the end. Finally, NATO, Russia and other small countries are at war with each other here.
You left out Australia and New Zealand. Being surrounded on all sides by fish is pretty good.
Russia, yes. The Middle East, I don't think so. If the Middle East becomes more chaotic it's actually the USA's ally that becomes more exposed, not it's opponents.Quote:
The United States is hoping that the Middle East and Russia will become more and more chaotic.