| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Comments:
<0> because they have the credibility to do so. Hopefully a similar process will happen w/Hamas
<1> i'm not going to bet on it
<0> no, but it's possible
<2> it'll be interesting to see how palestians handle the next 2 months - the could easily start a ruckus with Israel and sway the voters to a nutcase hardliner
<0> having them keep their original views will not really help them achieve any of their real goals
<3> Hamas is now in power. Those in power tend to do everything they can to protect and expand that power.
<0> right, and if that power is predicated on improving their constituents' lives, then a total dedication to 'armed struggle' / terrorism isn't that way
<2> Perhaps Hamas will actually succeed in running a Palestian government - they were somewhat successful in the humanitarian efforts
<0> 3J right
<2> But I can't say that I'm hopeful in the short term
<0> they won at least as much for their lack of corruption vs Fatah as for their militancy, imo more so
<0> no, in the short term not. Richard Haas on ABC just used the IRA analogy, which process took 10 years.
<3> Timur... well it could lead them to improving their constituents lives via peaceful means... *or* it could mean they start pounding the war drums... both methods have historically led to more power.
<3> Hatred, animosity, etc... can be great tools for sealing popular support.
<2> Of course you also have Iran prodding everyone in the area to attack each other
<0> Gl0ck: pretty clear that 'pounding the war drums' would result in their facing an overwhelming military response.
<4> Hamas is not in power, but they where given a voice. Just imagine if they had not of been.
<0> 3J: right, Iran wants instability there as much as possible.
<2> spkrt, Hamas won the election - they are the government now
<3> Timur... let's hope they don't bet on an overwhelming military response from the arabs to that response.
<0> Glock: the Arabs aren't really capable of mounting one
<2> The Dems are really gonna have to become more serious about defense/intelligence/etc. before the midterms given the way the world is winding up this year
<3> Timur... never stopped them from trying before.
<3> :P
<5> morning u nightwalkers
<0> in any case, Hamas has already made certain hints re: willingness to moderate positions, but of course that's to be seen in fact
<3> More than likely the situation will remain just as ****ty as usual.
<0> Glock: and failing each time, but the doomsday/regional war scenario I don't think is one being contemplated by anyone in the region.
<0> Glock: right
<2> but neither Hamas or US can buckle without losing face
<3> The nature of the dispute remains the same... just different people will be arguing over it.
<6> sweet...we can now officially declare the Palestinian state as a terrorist state now that Hamas has captured the majority of the parliamentary seats (75 out of 132)
<6> the next terror attack that Hamas takes credit for should be their death warrant for the whole Palestinian state
<4> why do that when there can be resolutions through dialog and political process now IamKing?
<2> the good news is the media black out on world events should cover most of February - so maybe some stuff can get done then
<6> spkrt: you forgot to read my 2nd comment
<4> i doubt a political party will take credit for future terrorist activity
<7> IamKing: if hamas as a gov bombs israel, israel will basically conquer palestina
<7> IamKing: its an act of war
<6> luciver: duh!
<6> thank you, Capt. Obvious!
<7> IamKing: sorry :)
<2> ok, gotta switch systems, back under the other nick in a few minutes
<6> hello?!? Hamas IS at war with Israel
<3> They wouldn't do it as a government... they'd do it like they always have... people within the group did it.
<7> IamKing: but so far, the palestinian state itself isnt
<0> IamKing: they must be aware they have an awful lot more to lose now
<3> It's not like they're going to p*** a resolution to do the bombing... they don't need to.
<6> luciver: Hamas now hold the majority of the Palestinian parliament
<6> luciver: so now the state is technically at war with Israel
<7> IamKing: yes; so i wonder whats going to happen
<4> so perhaps a state can now be formed based on current geopolitical circumstances
<7> IamKing: no; there was never a formal declaration of war or an attack by palestinian gov
<3> If a republican sets off a bomb in Canada, it doesn't mean the US gov't is responsible and that Canada can now bomb us at will.
<7> IamKing: the 'war' of hamas was only a war in the american sense, not a cl***ical one between govs
<6> luciver: like I said, if Hamas claims credit for a future terrorist attack on Israel...consider the Palestinian state to be done
<3> ffs
<7> IamKing: yup
<6> luciver: it's now only a matter of time that it will be
<7> IamKing: maybe; if they do, the people better revolt
<6> they won't...they'll just be bombed back into the Stone Age by both Israel and the US...enough said
<6> gotta go :P
<7> well they should realise they're not the US and cant just start bombing nations as a gov :P
<7> laters
<8> ok, back
<3> So let me get this straight... if a Hamas militant blows up a bus now... Israel invades/attacks/whatever... WTF is the arab world gonna be doing... sitting their with their thumb up their butt?
<8> only problem is Israel doesn't want to take over the Palestian areas
<7> Glock21: probably not; they have to either chose sides or sit idle while the palestinians get conquered
<3> 3Joe's indeed.
<0> 3J: well, hopefully they won't have to
<8> I can't imagine Hamas not attacking as usual
<7> hehe the palestinians have much power in world politics :P
<7> if only they could use it for their *own* gain
<7> well their own improvement
<8> even if Hamas wanted to stop, I don't think they have enough control to stop the little guys
<7> _3Josephs: ok but thats different
<8> not really, its still Hamas
<7> _3Josephs: its gov sanctioned/initiated bombing that has to be avoided
<7> _3Josephs: not if they condemn it from above and chase down those who do the bombing
<0> 3J: well, it'll be interesting to see if they can act as a more unified force for their people than incompetent and corrupt Fatah did
<3> chase down those who do the bombing?
<3> With what?
<8> no chance they would ever do that
<3> Tweezers and sandwich bags?
<8> if they went after their own to stop the bombings, they would just cause a civil war
<7> Glock21: !! :)
<7> _3Josephs: well if they dont they arent in control of their own party let alone country
<0> 3J: it's that or a response, or as Glock said, more low-level insurgency with more of the same as we are and have been seeing
<7> _3Josephs: i geuss palestinians have problems with authority :P
<8> palestinians have problems generally
<0> luc: well, they're still largely tribal
<8> and that have no identity beyond "destroy Israel"
<4> Israel could initiate a significant move by disarming the're nuke capacity then we can put it under a nuclear umbrella and justify the greater middle eastern weapons poliferation process. Otherwise its MAD for them.
<7> spkrt: israel will never give up nukes
<0> that's not a realistic immediate expectation
<7> spkrt: nuke = ultimate defense strategy
<0> well, never's a long time. but not now
<4> to be on the offensive with nukes
<7> ok maybe some day in the distant future :)
<8> with Iran in the area? no chance of Israel giving up nukes
<3> Can Israel really depend on the US to nuke back given the current political climate on the use of nukes?
<8> bottom line is one nuke can take out Israel - it ain't that big
<7> Glock21: depend? no
<7> Glock21: besides, who would give up their own self defense and place it in the hands of others?
<7> if they dont have to
<0> Glock: not as much as they can depend on themselves
<0> 1967 and 1973 taught them that.
<3> That's probably their angle then... arabs can be damn sure of an Israeli retaliatory strike right now. If Israel was under the US 'umbrella' then there could be some reasonable doubt of a retaliatory strike... especially if they use subnational forces to strike first.
<4> i am sure bush for example would imediatley retaliate with surface to air etc
<7> the US will nuke if its in the US interest, not against their but for Israeli interest
<9> Glock21, Iran said it would give up pursuing WMDs if Israel gave up theirs...
<7> organa: bluff
<3> Political promises don't amount to much.
<0> organa: which is of course a load of crap, since that's not the only reason Iran is getting nukes (Pakistan and India are others)
<7> organa: it would mean inspections in israel, israel giving up its ultimate self defense, etc.. it aint going to happen and iran knows this
<7> organa: maybe it even means iranian inspections in israel
<7> iran can easily claim not to trust the UN etc :P
<9> The UN could send inspectors to all nations willing to disarm...
<4> Iran said it has no interest in aquiring nukes but who's Israel to say when they ilegaly have aquired them.
<7> organa: but would iran trust the inspectors and israel if they claim not finding any WMD?
<7> organa: the US didnt trust the UN for not finding WMD in iraq either..
<7> organa: so it isnt that farfetched
<0> spkrt: legality isn't the issue. Geopolitical stability is, and Iran is clearly *not* a stabilizing force atm.
<7> spkrt: israel didnt sign the NPT, iran did
<7> spkrt: so under the NPT, israel can build nukes and iran cant
<7> if iran doesnt think this is fair, they shouldnt have signed the damn treaty
<3> Israel being allowed to have nukes while its adversaries aren't can be perceived as hypocritical but the rationale is that Israel has no intentions of wiping their adversaries off the map, while their adversaries blatantly admit to it.
<7> so how can they complain about unfairness which they agreed to
<7> Glock21: its about trust, and we call the shots
<7> Glock21: that is unfair, but still they shouldnt have signed the NPT :P
<3> I thought Israel was under treaty obligation to not have nukes.
<3> Isn't that the reason it is not officially admitted to?
<4> Actualy 'The zionist plan for the middle east' written up in the 80's plans for the further carving up of the middle east
<7> Glock21: israel didnt sign NPT though
<0> spkrt: thanks for admitting you're an idiot.
<9> Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories for 38 years ... how'd you like it if a foreign power occupied your country for that long, controlling checkpoints, harr***ing you, killing your neighbors, etc? Israel's big problem is with starving innocent women and children
<4> Have you read it Timur?
<3> spkrt... some plan written up in the 80's does not equate to an actual foreign policy instituted by the government.
<0> spkrt : read what
<3> Sorry, but it is irrelevant.
<4> The zionist plan for the middle east
<0> organa: maybe if you understood the actual history of the region, and understood the degree of 1. disunity among the palestinians and 2. the degree to which various groups among them are proxies of hostile powers like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, you might understand WHY That is so,.
<4> well then
<0> spkrt: what plan
<0> their plan is survival in a tough neighborhood
<0> so far that involves 1. withdrawing from Lebanon 2. withdrawing from Gaza and 3. walling off the WB, which all seem just and sensible.
<4> I hope they have a different one now
<3> Some 'zionist plan' written up 2 decades ago isn't foreign policy.
<3> It is irrelevant.
<3> The Unibomber had a plan too.
<0> Glock : just so. I might as well refer to the 'Islamic plan' of c. 700 AD
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#slackware
#nhl
klrforums
#gamedev
Randy Furby curling team
#nhl
#politics
stop windows notification
oxy withdrawels
#politics
|
|