So now Isreal is bombing Palestine and Lebanon. I guarantee you that Palestine and Lebanon are not going to just sit there and take it up the ass. How long before this escalates to a nuclear war?
Should we start getting worried?
- Thread starter Echo
- Start date
Like those arab countries have a nuke!
The ultimate in chicken little.Echo said:
when i heard that on cnn when i woke i thought "the **** has hit the fan".
lately i´ve been realpolitik-mussing about stuff like the geneva conventions and the rules of engagements.. and i´ve had some icky ideas...
i agree with the principle behind them. GC and ROE provide a more humane treatment to those involved in war and, in a way, lower the "necessary" amount of damage and pain and places a powerful incentive NOT to use excesive force. (like not doing 20 years for war crimes).
but i believe sometimes ROE and the GC can cause more destruction and pain, specifically in scenarios for which they were not thought for to begin with.
they can sometimes go against the very same principle they were established for.
ROE for example, provide certain excemptions abused by terrorist groups to inflict damage to "regularly" ROE abiding armies. this can sometimes prolong war for longer than it would have taken IF said groups were not certain their tactics would be indirectly protected by ROE.
taking about the real world, in wars between regular armies and paramilitaries (regardless of who was right)... colombia, peru, vietnam, iraq, israel, etc, etc.....
peru got rid of its commie guerilla after 12 years with the army playing nasty tricks. i agree the tricks were nasty and everything my "liberal" mind can get a grip on... BUT i cannot deny they were effective.
did less people died (and peace was achieved) as a result of that, than it would have been IF ROE and every other rules were followed?
i believe now, after the fact, we can establish less people died.
does that justify them????
if saving lives doesnt justify its use, then "saving lifes" cant justify "the principle of killing less people"????
btw, i dont believe ROE, GC and others should not apply to regular armies fighting between them, nor that every humanitarian rule should be rejected... flame me away....
lately i´ve been realpolitik-mussing about stuff like the geneva conventions and the rules of engagements.. and i´ve had some icky ideas...
i agree with the principle behind them. GC and ROE provide a more humane treatment to those involved in war and, in a way, lower the "necessary" amount of damage and pain and places a powerful incentive NOT to use excesive force. (like not doing 20 years for war crimes).
but i believe sometimes ROE and the GC can cause more destruction and pain, specifically in scenarios for which they were not thought for to begin with.
they can sometimes go against the very same principle they were established for.
ROE for example, provide certain excemptions abused by terrorist groups to inflict damage to "regularly" ROE abiding armies. this can sometimes prolong war for longer than it would have taken IF said groups were not certain their tactics would be indirectly protected by ROE.
taking about the real world, in wars between regular armies and paramilitaries (regardless of who was right)... colombia, peru, vietnam, iraq, israel, etc, etc.....
peru got rid of its commie guerilla after 12 years with the army playing nasty tricks. i agree the tricks were nasty and everything my "liberal" mind can get a grip on... BUT i cannot deny they were effective.
did less people died (and peace was achieved) as a result of that, than it would have been IF ROE and every other rules were followed?
i believe now, after the fact, we can establish less people died.
does that justify them????
if saving lives doesnt justify its use, then "saving lifes" cant justify "the principle of killing less people"????
btw, i dont believe ROE, GC and others should not apply to regular armies fighting between them, nor that every humanitarian rule should be rejected... flame me away....
because they have big wangs?LordOpie said:
waiting for a big dust cloud to form over the middle east.
Anyone else think its time to stop giving Isreal money and let natural selection take its course?
Nope.Serial Midget said:
Israel and the Islamists need to fvcking die.
Bear in mind that so far (according to figures from the BBC):
Hezbollah has killed 8 Israeli soldiers and captured 2, and killed 1 Israeli civilian
The Israeli army has killed an unknown no of Hezbollah guerillas and 27 Lebanese civilians (of which 10 were children).
Hezbollah suck btw.
Hezbollah has killed 8 Israeli soldiers and captured 2, and killed 1 Israeli civilian
The Israeli army has killed an unknown no of Hezbollah guerillas and 27 Lebanese civilians (of which 10 were children).
Hezbollah suck btw.
rockwool said:
as eerie and hair rising as it may sound, yes.
i dont believe regular armies should be bound by ROE when facing established guerillas.
GC, not every one of them.
:hot:
Seems like the Israelis got the lead in this match aswell..fluff said:
I don't think Hizbollah suck. They are a product of their enviroment and a guerilla movement.
The western world lable them as terrorists but that is a butcher labeling the meat. If this was the 1770's the Brittish would have labled the American freedom movement as terrorists.
i see the lack of guerrillas and general peacefulness in scandinavia creates funny ideals......rockwool said:
But then they wouldn't have to follow the law?!!ALEXIS_DH said:
Recently the US supreme court ruled that special courts for "terrorists" were illegal. Now even in that crazy country there is some powerful people that say that even the mighty military have to abide by the same rules that every body else has too.
am not saying they should all be discarted..rockwool said:
but i believe a new set is required. plus the whole idea of "special courts" isnt that crazy... military personnel are already judged on "special courts" too....
Whilst I can understand that "today's terrorists are tomorrow's freedom fighters" I find it hard to justify attacks upon civilians. If Hezbollah were to restrict their actions to only military targets (and I would even concede diplomatic at a stretch) then you might have a point.rockwool said:
However, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan. (Source wikipaedia but it is generally held to be true.)
It's hippocritical!ALEXIS_DH said:
There is no difference to a guerilla than to a regular army just because they don't wave another coloured flag than the ones they are fighting.
The type of warfare that they do does not rule them out as any different eather. The whole swedish army is buillt up in smaller guerilla units and the main battle form they use is guerilla ambushing.
To win a war/battle you have to master tactics just like in a game of football; different offensive/defensive combinations.
Yes there is no justification to attacking civilians. But if you occupy another country its bound to happen. We should also remember all the mental **** people in a warzone go through (which is to abstract to understand for us who haven't lived it).fluff said:
Israeli civilians dying is a REACTION not an ACTION to the occupations of Palestine!
US military in Lebanon? What were they doing there anyways, protecting the 53'd state?
no its not.rockwool said:
in a regular army there is a somewhat established chain of command, where there if a face for accountability and so on.
in a guerilla you are bound to get the "wasn´t me" card a lot. that makes for more "innecesary" damage in the long term.
and dont tell me "guerrillas" are effective tactics to "win". for the most part, they just prolong the defeat of whoever resorts to them, killing more people in the meanwhile.
Did you justify the torture and the kidnappings?rockwool said:
It is important to separate right from wrong regardless of the situation. Even during the occupation of Lebanon by Israeli forces if Hezbollah employ such tactics as kidnapping & killing the citizens of other nations (and hence non-combatants in any sense) then they are clearly utilising terrorist tactics. That makes them terrorists.
None of which justifies, or is justified by, any other questionable actions by any other parties.
Why do you think that?Changleen said:
I think we should take away their nukes....then stop sending them aid.
except theres a huge difference between shooting at army regulars and blowing up a car in a crowded city street full of civilliansrockwool said:
i give it a week till we are in the middle of that **** stormEcho said:
There is one huge difference!
Is the Israelis don't attack the Palistinians unless provoked.
The arabs on the other hand are continually attacking Israel with terrorism and with conventional weapons.
Why should the world condem Israel for defending against her attackers?
Is the Israelis don't attack the Palistinians unless provoked.
The arabs on the other hand are continually attacking Israel with terrorism and with conventional weapons.
Why should the world condem Israel for defending against her attackers?
So if Norway got its' collective panties in a bunch and started ambushing your guerilla units, that would be just like an occupying force, using proper ROE's and following the GC, getting picked off??......wow....just wow....rockwool said:
Well, the Israelis are occupying the Palestinians & Syrians/Lebanese territory so you could argue that the occupation is an act of aggression.N8 said:
fluff said:
there never was a 'palestinian' state... and the other 3 countries lost their territory after attacking Israel in the 1960's and lost.
What "other 3 countries" are you referring to exactly?N8 said: