Sorry, that struck me as funny. I don't know how "a missile or two" isn't threatening to people living across a wall from the people holding it (who also happen to be the people who would like to see you die). I suspect that area of the planet will never see peace again until Iron Man establishes it, or someone nukes it and there are no survivors.
israel flotilla situation?
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
Sorry, that struck me as funny. I don't know how "a missile or two" isn't threatening to people living across a wall from the people holding it (who also happen to be the people who would like to see you die). I suspect that area of the planet will never see peace again until Iron Man establishes it, or someone nukes it and there are no survivors.
Slappfisk
Member
It is not that black and white.
Innocent people are getting hurt on both sides and neither side is particularly virtuous. However to paint this as a case of the evil Israeli's versus innocent Palestinians is myopic.
I agree with you. I consider sanctions, blockades and embargoes an act of war and not a noble, humanitarian way of conducting war, but one of the cruelest and least effective. I think that if you can justify a blockade you have gone beyond the point of justifying actual combat directly against your adversary until they capitulate.
Slappfisk
Member
Blockades are extremely effective.
Examples:
The Royal Navy's blockade of Imperial Germany during the first world war.
The Union blockade of the Confederacy.
German unrestricted submarine warfare against the British Isles in both world wars.
American unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese in the second world war.
Whether it is noble, or kind is irrelevant so long as you win the conflict then you can paint history anyway you like. A good example of that is that the Germans were charged with war crimes relating to unrestricted submarine warfare at Nuremberg while the Americans were praised post-war for their implementation of the same strategy.
Examples:
The Royal Navy's blockade of Imperial Germany during the first world war.
The Union blockade of the Confederacy.
German unrestricted submarine warfare against the British Isles in both world wars.
American unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese in the second world war.
Whether it is noble, or kind is irrelevant so long as you win the conflict then you can paint history anyway you like. A good example of that is that the Germans were charged with war crimes relating to unrestricted submarine warfare at Nuremberg while the Americans were praised post-war for their implementation of the same strategy.
I think you're making my point. In all of your examples blockades were used as a component of a larger active war. Lately things like economic sanctions, embargoes and blockades have been being used SHORT of going to war as a sort of diplomatic method of fighting battles. The U.N. in particular prefers such things to sending in troops. The primary victims of those actions when they are not part of a larger effort to defeat the enemy are women and children.
Slappfisk
Member
You stated that blockades were one of the least effective strategies in war. I just illustrated that this was not true.
Everything else you have said is pretty much outside the scope of this thread right?
Getting back on topic.
Israel's blockade is legal, the response to the blockade runners was legal. Will be interesting to see what happens with this Irish ship.
Blah. I already stated above that I wasn't condoning Palestinian aggression towards Israel. I'm painting this case as two core countries, Israel and the U.S., starving an entire population in an attempt to stop Hamas. This is the reality and hardly myopic. Yes, the situation is sticky and both sides carry some of the blame. But to justify the starving of thousands, and the 10 fold killing of innocent civilians.......I can't go there.
Slappfisk
Member
Well to each their own.
These innocent people elected Hamas to represent them and they are paying the price. If you elect a party that is violently opposed to the one power in the region that can grant you independence. If you elect a party that is listed as a terrorist organisation by the only countries with the power to influence Israel. If you elect a political party that has a rocky relationship with the neighbouring countries who are sympathetic to your cause. You cannot complain about the consequences, can you?
These are not children, they made their choice in 2006 and now they are stuck with it until they can get their act together and hold their much delayed elections. Then they will get the opportunity to make a choice that will actually give them a chance of getting what they want.
DutchJazzer
Banned
kill em all let god sort em out
I wasn't clear, sorry. I was saying that the contemporary way these things are used is apart from a larger war effort, as a way to "pressure" your enemy into compliance without having to fight them. That is what I feel is ineffective
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Everyone's favorite rubbish reporter sounds off on Isreal/Palenstine....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=447ekAh8AOo
For you old cats out there, was there ever a time when she was bearable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=447ekAh8AOo
For you old cats out there, was there ever a time when she was bearable?
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Dutch, which country are you originally from again? I remember you saying that you aren't Dutch but just working there or something?