International Events : How I learnt to stop worrying and love the-

[Mudguard]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  If they did think that, they wouldn’t still be negotiating.  And frankly, this would’ve been over by now if that was possible.  There will always be an insurgent force in Gaza as long as it is occupied and blockaded.  That should be pretty obvious.

This was never going to be a quick war, with the extensive tunnel systems, all the hostages, and the ability of Hamas terrorists to just put on civilian clothes and blend right back in with the civilian population.  I agree that there will be a resistance in Gaza, whether it's residual Hamas members or a new organization, but the resistance isn't going to be the party in power in Gaza, at least not while Israel occupies Gaza.

 

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Whether Hamas is extremely weakened or not, at this point there are millions who will never, can never, forget what Israel has done to their families and Gaza.  This means even more powerful, and some very sophisticated, power or even powers, will emerge, dependent upon damaging Israel.

Israel has made itself more unsafe than it has ever been before -- this particularly is so because it's lost support from the rest of the world.  Except US, but when stinkin' pile and his ilks take over, Israel -- fergedd 'bout it!

Yeah, the terrible Oct. 7th attack by Hamas, and the brutal response by Israel, just perpetuates the cycle of violence for at least several more generations.  It's hard for me to see a good outcome from this.  It seems like all the likely outcomes range from bad to worse.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

but the resistance isn't going to be the party in power in Gaza, at least not while Israel occupies Gaza.

You continue to ignore the fact the Hamas leadership is not in Gaza.

[Conflicting Thought]

Just now, Mudguard said:

just perpetuates the cycle of violence for at least several more generations.

thing is, the cycle of violence didnt star on oct 7, if oct 7th didnt happend, the cycle of violence in gaza and the west bank keeps on going as it has on the past, except now there is a huge escalation of the destruction and suffering of the palestinian people.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Doesnt typically invade, but they do interfiere whenever they can in subtle and not so subtle ways. And the efects of those interventions lasting decades and still being felt today

All countries interfere in other countries issues. This has been done since city states and countries existed. All of recorded history is a litany of one group interfering with another group just because they could. This is people being people.

[Jace, Extat]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

You continue to ignore the fact the Hamas leadership is not in Gaza.

Does this somehow eliminate the need to dismantle it where it can be found? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

Does this somehow eliminate the need to dismantle it where it can be found? 

Unless you're proposing that Israel goes to war against Qatar and Egypt...yes? 

If that's your war aim you should probably be pretty open and honest about that. 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Unless you're proposing that Israel goes to war against Qatar and Egypt...yes? 

If that's your war aim you should probably be pretty open and honest about that. 

Just to be clear:

You think that Israel should not be fighting Hamas in Gaza because Qatar and Egypt is where their masterminds live? Am I getting that right?

[Zorral]

Nope.

1 minute ago, Jace, Extat said:

Am I getting that right?

 

[Hmmm]

6 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Why is it that belligerence of autocracies is the only factor considered in conflicts? It is not as if the replying 'democracies' are wholly innocent in choosing a plan of action (usually stupid but profitable). 

The conflicts in question revolve around whether Ukraine and Taiwan should be allowed to keep existing as independent states or not. Do you think the West is wrong regarding where it stands there? Regarding what in particular, then? 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Nope.

 

Don't tease, Z. What's Kal trying to say?

Because there's precedent for invading countries that are harboring terror leadership.

[polishgenius]

38 minutes ago, maarsen said:

All countries interfere in other countries issues. This has been done since city states and countries existed. All of recorded history is a litany of one group interfering with another group just because they could. This is people being people.

 

 

Not really sure what the point being made is here: no-one said it wasn't. Me, CT and kbf weren't arguing that the west is uniquely bad (at least I wasn't, but I think they agree)- just that it (and the west, as per the original quote I responded to) isn't uniquely better than anyone else either. 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Does this somehow eliminate the need to dismantle it where it can be found? 

No.

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

just that it (and the west, as per the original quote I responded to) isn't uniquely better than anyone else either. 

How dare you!!!

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Just to be clear:

You think that Israel should not be fighting Hamas in Gaza because Qatar and Egypt is where their masterminds live? Am I getting that right?

I didn't say anything about Israel not fighting Hamas. I do think Israel should have significantly different goals than what they've espoused having, and if they have the goal of killing the masterminds they probably shouldn't have started with invading Gaza. 

 

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't say anything about Israel not fighting Hamas. I do think Israel should have significantly different goals than what they've espoused having, and if they have the goal of killing the masterminds they probably shouldn't have started with invading Gaza. 

 

They started with Gaza because that's where the threat manifests, rockets and soldiers. Hamas, the organization, is in Gaza no matter where the leadership lives. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, then. 

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

They started with Gaza because that's where the threat manifests, rockets and soldiers. Hamas, the organization, is in Gaza no matter where the leadership lives. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, then. 

If they're wanting to get the masterminds you have to figure out how to lure them out of hiding or commit to killing them in ways that are significantly different and politically potentially far more costly. Destroying Gaza does not particularly help you with any of that and potentially makes it significantly harder or impossible. 

I personally don't see a lot of value in going after them. They aren't special on their own, they are useful to negotiate with while safe, they can be largely made toothless with a whole lot of processes and options. There's no value in saying you're going to 'eradicate' Hamas unless you're really wanting to fight an endless war. And if you're doing that, hey, that's cool, but I prefer ones that end and have a good goal. 

It seems you prefer empty symbolic gestures and slogans.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

you can't sell any weapons when conflicts aren't prolonged and end with mass destruction very soon. Which leads to further public condemnation that leads to appeasement policies which is detrimental to their profits. Drawn out war can be milked for all its worth. Armaments aren't the only things being sold or bought, wartime logistics are far bigger. 

 

Ok.  Given the other posts in this thread about the cycle of violence, this is a very ironic post.

I think you are saying that an escalated war will "solve" the problem and that the armaments industry will no longer have any weapons to sell because there will be peace in our time.  Which is frankly hilarious.  But at least I see now where you are coming from, so thanks for explaining.

To be clear, the cycle of violence rarely stops.  War begets more war.  I can't think of any major conflict at the moment where I expect a resolution will lead to a complete de-escalation.  The military industrial complex doesn't have to lose any sleep about a loss of earnings.

2 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Umm, I wasn't. It was just an illustrative example.

Sure.  I was hoping you were been less vague but ok.

2 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

I'd advise ranking danger not on the basis of who has the bigger larder but the one with the biggest appetite.

I was talking about both.  Larder (the West) and appetite (Russia but there are plenty other countries).

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Meh. Even as someone who because of my background really fucking hates Russia I'd suggest that this is largely dependent on where you live.

Of course.  Nobody can pretend that every country is affected in the same way.  And your point about the economic exploitation by Western companies just echoes my point about the West having way more means to negatively affect other countries.

Similarly, of course the West is not better than everyone else.  But Russia?  Admittedly, a very low bar, so I wouldn't get excited.

[Jace, Extat]

Well, I would say that I prefer Israel's security be achieved by removing Hamas as a controlling entity in Gaza. That's what they're doing. 

You achieve goals as they are possible: dismantling Hamas in Gaza is possible. You do that. Immediately. 

We didn't get Bin Laden in the spring of 2002.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Well, I would say that I prefer Israel's security be achieved by removing Hamas as a controlling entity in Gaza. That's what they're doing. 

But that's not what you said you wanted, and that's not what they've said they're wanting. 

4 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

You achieve goals as they are possible: dismantling Hamas in Gaza is possible. You do that. Immediately. 

We didn't get Bin Laden in the spring of 2002.

Ignoring the fact that we likely could have gotten him in 2002 if we hadn't fucked up operationally, you also shouldn't announce goals that you know are not possible. You also don't say that hostilities will continue in Gaza if your targets are not in Gaza. But that's what Israel has done. 

[Jace, Extat]

Kal, what the fuck are you trying to say here? 

Hamas, the organization -the structure of the thing- is IN GAZA. It will be eradicated as a functioning entity. Hamas' leadership being abroad is a continued problem, but Hamas' leadership being abroad with their organization intact is a much bigger problem and one that can be addressed by fighting Hamas where it is... in Gaza.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Well, I would say that I prefer Israel's security be achieved by removing Hamas as a controlling entity in Gaza. That's what they're doing. 

You achieve goals as they are possible: dismantling Hamas in Gaza is possible. You do that. Immediately. 

We didn't get Bin Laden in the spring of 2002.

Yeah, I don’t think the Bin Laden example supports your point there Brownie.  I’m not gonna speak for Kal - gods know he can speak for himself - but the obvious issue is you don’t have to do what Israel is doing in order to fight Hamas.  That’s the problem.  And it’s really annoying when people pose this as a binary dilemma.  It Is Not.  Stop.  Regroup.  And try to think instead of reacting like Dubya and Cheney because that fucked up a generation.  And this may well too unless cooler heads prevail.