Israeli Airstrike Kills Hamas Leader & Civilians

[Jedieb]

I believe it was yesterday that Israel targeted and killed one of the leaders of Hamas, the militant terroist organization that's taken credit for several terroist attacks against Israel.. Unfortunately, several civilians were killed in the attack. Nine children, including a two-month old infant were killed when an F-16's missile destroyed the apartment building housing militant Hamas leader Salah Shehade. Reports indicate that his wife and family were killed as well. Early reactions from Israel describing the operation as a success are angering many in the international community.At the funerals of the dead crowds numbering close to 100,000 protested the attack.

The price that Israel is going to pay for achieving their objective is going to be a high one. I have no doubt that Israel was justified in targeting and eliminating Shehade. The man was directly responsible for dozens, if not hundreds of civilian Israeli deaths. But the manner in which Israel achieved its objective was appaling. Their intelligence may have been faulty, but Sharon's early endorsement of the attacks make today's apologies and explanations moot. I fear that the Palestinian retaliation for this attack will be severe. By the end of the week we'll see more Israili and Palestinina blood spilled as a result of this. Does anyone see an end to this? I honestly see no end to this violence in the forseable future. I fear that the violence may escalate as one side decides it may have to up the ante by resorting to even more devastating attacks against the other. IMO, a biological, or nuclear attack is not out of the question.

[Admiral Lebron]

Personally, if I were Sharon. For every Israeli civillian killed I'd launch a half a dozen missles into the city from the bomber came from. I'd target the same type of building too. They hit cafes, I hit cafes. They hit schools, I hit schools. Sooner or later though they'd get the message.

[ReaperFett]

Lebron, that's the problem as it is.

[Admiral Lebron]

Sharon isn't being that harsh. Not like Sharon of the 70's woulda been. . .

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Go Israel!!!

[Gabran Darkysa]

Lebron - If you strike back adopting the murderous methods of your enemy ... then you are no morally better! Two evils do not make a right! You would transform an organization like the Hamas into holy jihad martyrs, casting Israel in a very poor light among it's Muslim neighbors. There has to be better solutions than keep throwing bigger rocks at one another!

This conflict is of literal biblical proportion as there has always been unrest between the Jews and the palestinians since the time of Isaac and his half-brother Ishmael. Israel has long been an staunch american allie who is fed up with unjust bloodshed of palestinian fanaticism and terrorism. However these groups remain a powerful influence supported by numerous arab/north african powers. Namely Iraq, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and others. There is also muslim african nations supporting and housing middle eastern terrorists. If one of these countries has nuclear or biological capability, this conflict can become something terrifying on a global scale. It is scary to think about!

[Jedieb]

Personally, if I were Sharon. For every Israeli civillian killed I'd launch a half a dozen missles into the city from the bomber came from. I'd target the same type of building too. They hit cafes, I hit cafes. They hit schools, I hit schools. Sooner or later though they'd get the message.
There in lies the problem. No one IS getting the message. The violence just keeps going back and forth, back and forth. This isn't a question of, if Israel just took the gloves off... I'm a supporter of Israel, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the what both sides are doing right now isn't working. My greatest fear is that a Palestinian will eventually use a biological or nuclear device in an attack. A third party needs to step in. It's unlikey that the U.S. can role fill that role, but someone has to. Here's an article I read awhile back that I found to be very enlightening. It doesn't offer a solution, but it's a nice recap of the situation:


Whosoever Blesses Them
The intifada and its defenders.
by Larry Miller
04/22/2002 12:00:00 AM


Larry Miller, contributing humorist





I WAS WATCHING Greta Van Facelift on Fox the other night, and she and her guests made me talk back to the TV. Shout back, actually. Nothing witty or trenchant, you understand, just something like, "Oh, come on!" Now, to be honest, it was late, and I was downstairs alone, and I was a little, what's the word . . . loaded, yes, that's the word. I was a little shined up. A little spiffed and a little miffed, and I shouted something and angrily turned off the remote. I don't know exactly how angrily a remote can be turned off, but as angrily as you can push a pfennig-sized piece of round plastic, that's how angrily I did it. Then I walked back to the bar, made myself one-for-the-stairs (as opposed to one-for-the-road) and read some P.G. Wodehouse to restore my cheery nature. But back to the freshly-tightened Greta.

Her guests were (INSERT INDISTINGUISHABLE ARAB NAME), from Hamas, and their attorney, Stanley Cohen. No, that's not a joke. Would that it were. Stanley Cohen, the attorney for Hamas. Check that handle again: Stanley Cohen. I mean, if you tried to make up a better name than that, you couldn't do it. Let's give it a shot, though, shall we? Irving Lefkowitz. Nah, too obvious. Lew Fishman. No, no, sounds like a carpet salesman. Isaac Bashevis Singer? Now I'm reaching. Nope, you just can't beat good ol' Stan Cohen. Yes, Stanley Cohen, folks, a hard-left, righteously indignant true-believer, an honors graduate from the William Kunstler School of Just-Not-Getting-It-And-Never-Will, who had flown all the way from New York to sit next to his wonderful client over there in not the land of milk and honey. Stanley Cohen. A man who, if he listened very carefully, would no doubt hear voices in the next room planning to blow the eyes out of more of his nieces and nephews. Stanley Cohen, and even typing that name right now and remembering this horrible man damning his own people again and again and again, I crack a nervous smile, because they're my people, too, and, God help me, if I didn't laugh, I think I might cry.

Oddly enough, out of the three of them, the homunculus from Hamas didn't bother me at all. I mean, if you think about it, why should he bother any American? We know exactly who he is and, in a way, we should be grateful for that. Because if we're only willing to absorb their own words--nevermind their demonic deeds--he and his brethren have a perfectly uncomplicated point of view and agenda, and their clarity should give us our own clarity, and wouldn't that be refreshing? You want us dead? Well, now, isn't that a funny coincidence. Guess what we want?

My point is, if American TV calls up and wants to put these philanthropists on, who could blame them for saying, "Sure!" I can just see them bursting out laughing and slapping each other on the back. ("They're going to put us on Fox TV! I told you terror works! And I'll bet their Green Room beats the snot out of Al Jazeera. I mean, please, how many olives can you eat?") If we're stupid enough to do that, I don't blame them for taking us up on it. All they have to do is take a few minutes away from packing rusty nails around the C4, pick one of their guys who looks, relatively, the least like a vicious scumbag, borrow a suit, and send him forth to smile for the cameras. With Stanley Cohen.

But let's leave the newly-stretched Greta for a moment, as well as our friends Stanley and Ishmael (no joke, his real name). A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."

Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course--that's where the real fun is--but mostly they want Israel. Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel--or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it--for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something. It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . uh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

There's bad news on the losing moral weight front, and the signs are out there. Last week, the day after Secretary Powell left on his mission (whatever that was), the Los Angeles Times ran its lead editorial in one hundred percent support of the trip and the pressure he and President Bush were putting on Israel. Here's a good rule of thumb: If the Los Angeles Times thinks you're doing a great job, everything you're doing is wrong, stupid and mortally dangerous. If they think everything you're doing is wrong, stupid and mortally dangerous, you're doing a great job, and, in fact, your chances are probably very good for getting on the fast track for sainthood.

So, now, back to Greta. You know what made me mad enough to shout? You might not even think it was that big a thing.

After the show she said to these guys, "Thank you, gentlemen, for being my guests." "Gentlemen." "Guests." "My guests." That's what it's come to with these non-judgmental hosts and hostesses. Nice, huh? "Thank you, Mr. Stalin, sir, for being so gracious in giving us your valuable time." "My eternal gratitude, Chairman Mao, for taking precious moments away from your splendid Five-Year Plan and visiting with us in this most convivial way."

And I winced, and grunted, and shouted. Oh, yeah, and made that drink.

I mean, please, folks. In 1941, did reporters feel it was their duty to give equal time to Hitler and Hirohito? Would Stanley Cohen have represented them? Ok, Stanley probably would have, but would any American have stood still while he told us about it?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I disagree with him slightly because Palestine was the name of the country and there were palestians because the Romans gave the Jews the boot after one of there many revolts. Really there is an irony in all of this back than the Jews were the terrorist, they did the same thing the Palestians did target Roman civilians, kill Roman Soliders and what did it get them booted out of their own country, sure the Romans were no better they were brutal, if you messed with Rome they would kill you, your family and crucify you and place your bodies on the Roman Roads for all to see (remember Spartacus) or they would throw you in the colluseum to please their citizens as they watched you be torn limb from limb. Of course those type of taticts couldn't be used today. Personally I have given up with the situation and don't care any more I just hope if it spreads that the US doesn't get involved let Israel and the Arab countries settle it regardless of the cost, I say they made there bed so let them lie in it. As you can tell I have become very pragamatic about the whole situation and don't care if they kill each other any more. Sure I would like to see it stop, but I have no idea how to stop it without occuping the whole area, or taking the tactics the Romans did. Maybe there is somebody out there who can put a stop to it, we can only hope.

[Jedieb]

Romans, bad guys? But Russel Crowe was so coool! ;)

I think he was refererring to the fact that before WWII, the land was occupied by other Arab nations and the term defined an area, not a country. But he does make a point of describing the Israeli mindset. After all of the attacks they've suffered their patience is non existant.

[Gabran Darkysa]

Whoooo.. Larry Miller did not hold back any punches! Excellent article though it overly stereotypes. Miller underplays the strengths of these terrorist organizations. Because many these "palestinians" are not a bunch of ignorant, backwater, illerate hillbillies... no sir ... no indeed.. they are very highly educated and very intelligent people. Perhaps not "Joe Kalam" on the frontline tossing the stones... but the higher echelon of these factions are highly organized with strong political ties. They are usually educated by leading american or european institutions. Driven under the power of religious fanaticism and personal conviction however twisted.

But point taken, thanks Jedieb!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Did I say the Romans were bad:p Sure they killed Christians like we kill Roaches, kicked the Jews out of Israel but first made sure they remembered it by burning down there temple and crucifying thousands, but other than that they were really cool ;)

As far as Miller I agreed with him on most of that I am just got side tract on that point about Palestine, really there was no Israel or Palestine until recently the territory was Occupied by one nation or another from the Romans to Muslims to the Crusaders to muslims again and finally to the British and it wasn't until after WW II that they finally decided to give the land to the Jews it was part of the Yalta Conference Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed upon, not sure how much of it was out of Sympathy for the Jews with the Holocaust but it was still agreed upon.

[Jedieb]

If I remember right, final U.S. recognition came under Truman. There were some in his cabinet, Marshall I believe, that opposed our recognition of Israel. But Truman went ahead with his convictions and followed through on the promises that had been made earlier. Harry Truman, friggin' stud!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yes it was at Potsdam, but I think the beginings of it happened at Yalta, I think Roosevelt proposed it, but Stalin (the anti-Semite he was) was against it so they never really came to a firm agreement, at Potsdam the US and the West just did anyway and Stalin let it go, he had bigger plans and could care less about the Middle East at the time.

[Darth23]

it's so funny that thsi whoel 'terrorism' thing mostly ignores extreme violence done to civilinas by legitimate governments.

Personaly I beleive that violence against civilians is wrong, whether it's being done by a suicide bomber, an F-14 fighter jet firign a missle into an occupied apartment building, the Russian military fighting shelling villiages where they say there are "terrorists", or a wedding party being bombed by the only superpower left in the world.

[Jedieb]

Yeah, because that pilot PURPOSELY meant to bomb innocent guests at a wedding party.:rolleyes The next time you're flying a jet in the service of your country and you see machine gunfire tell me what you do in response. Mistakes happen in warfare and that was what that pilot was doing, HIS JOB. He doesn't have the luxury of sitting at home and judging whether or not that gunfire is part of a wedding celebration, or someone trying to shoot him down. He made the wrong decision, but he had to make a decision. At least our government admitted its mistake. The Israeli's were callous in their response to the mistake. That was inexcusable. But seeing as how they have citizens dying every month because someone's blowing themselves up and killing civillians, they have a reason to do SOMETHING. They just did the wrong thing. But this could have been avoided if Shehade hadn't organized and carried out attacks against those Israeli civilians.

That's the main difference here. These terroist bombers aren't targeting military installations or personnel. They're going after civilians. Both sides have done reprehensible things, but only one side is advocating wiping the other out, and it's not the Israelis. As for the U.S.'s actions, war is brutal. We didn't start it, but what the hell did those maniacs think we were going to do? Lay down after Sept. 11th? Send a note to those responsible saying; "Please don't do that again, pretty please." This is what happens you commit a hideous act of terroism against a superpower, you get the crap bombed out of you. And in that campaign, innoncents will be hurt. That's war, that's life. But if you want to tell everyone in N.Y. and D.C. that we should have just licked our wounds and done squat, then be my guest. Just send a letter to a NYC firehouse, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.glasbergen.com/images/mar14.gif


Seems an appropriate cartoon

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is the problem with modern warfare ever since WW I civilians have killed in war before it rarely happened. As a historian I perfer the combat of the 17th and 18th century when the armies all went in battlefield shot at each other and after one army retreated the battle was over, not too many died back then, unfortuntely that type of warfare ended around the time of the French Revolution (the movie the Patriot give an example of this Cornwallis was old school and was willing to move foward) Napoleon was the first to see the potetial in the changes that the Americans did in its Revolution and used to his advantage. Next was the Civil War where the warfare changed greatly. The Europeans didn't notice the change until WW I though and that is why the death toll was so high and WW II it was even worse. That is the problem with war, and sure I despise it but I realistically realize that there is nothing to do to change it, but try to avoid it though like you said Jedieb we couldn't avoid what happened to us so we did what we had to do. Still what the Israels did was just wrong, it was about as bad as what the Germans did in WW II (they targeted civilians a lot it was part of their strategy) I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of Israel strategy to try to influence the Palestians but I don't think it will work in this case.

[Admiral Lebron]

The problem with todays warfare is that is not very open, like 17th and 1th century warfare. Back then, they marched out onto a field and fought. Today, its in the cities and villages as well as out in the middle of nowhere. And, we're using explosives that do damage not muskets and bayonets.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Its part of that, during the American revolution the patriots though guerrial tactics mostly in the south the problem for the British is their Army stood out and was easily defeated, the French (who were allies) noticed this and it got back to Napoleon who used some of these tactics in his own army, still it wasn't until the introduction of more powerful weapons and more accurate weapons than the Musket, this happened in the 1860's right with the Civil War, still the Europeans didn't fight a major war from 1816 to 1914 (unless you want to count the Crimea war which was very minor, I don't count the Franco-Prussian War because that was very short and had very few casualities) It was during WW I that civilians were first targed though mostly accidently (the Germans using Big Bertha for example had no clue of its capabilities and there were some accidents) plus all the new weapons from the airplane to the Tank civilians sometimes got in the way. Still it wasn't until WWII that Civilians were really targeted, first you have the Germans who killed civilians ruthless in Poland, Russia, France, and in the Blitz. And of course there was the Holocaust where the Nazis massacered civilians, though not for reasons of war. Hitler used these tacticts to create fear and make the other side cave in. It worked in some cases but not really in Russia who did the same thing. Now Britian and the US did it most notably at Dresden, when we nearly bombed the city off the map, and then the use of the twin bombs in Japan, both cases were atrocities, though the later may have been neccessary I think Dresden was wrong and was just as bad as some of the things the Germans did in the war.

[Admiral Lebron]

The Crimean War was not minor! Entire companies marched off into fog and disappeared!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I mean minor in the scope of European History a lot of people died but nothing really came out of the war, except that it hurt Napoleon III's power in France (though it was the Franco-Prussian war that pushed him out of power) still, the war happened over 50 years before WW I and they were using different weapons so I think if anything the miltary stragetist before WW I fought that warfare would be similar to that of the Crimea war without taking into account the changes in weapons.

[JMK]

Sometimes I wish we could just build a plexi-glass dome around them and let them have it out. When they're both either tired or out of bullets, they'd be let out and would have to apologize to everyone for acting like stupid infants. ;)

[Gabran Darkysa]

I wish it were that simple JMK! But these hostilities are heartfelt, ingrained into their beliefs and livelyhoods. This is an all out tooth and claw fight which neither side wants to yield or surrender their cause. Too many generations of bad blood and bloodshed have led to the hardening their hearts.

[Darth23]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Yeah, because that pilot PURPOSELY meant to bomb innocent guests at a wedding party.:rolleyes The next time you're flying a jet in the service of your country and you see machine gunfire tell me what you do in response. Mistakes happen in warfare and that was what that pilot was doing, HIS JOB. He doesn't have the luxury of sitting at home and judging whether or not that gunfire is part of a wedding celebration, or someone trying to shoot him down. He made the wrong decision, but he had to make a decision. At least our government admitted its mistake. The Israeli's were callous in their response to the mistake. That was inexcusable. But seeing as how they have citizens dying every month because someone's blowing themselves up and killing civillians, they have a reason to do SOMETHING. They just did the wrong thing. But this could have been avoided if Shehade hadn't organized and carried out attacks against those Israeli civilians.

That's the main difference here. These terroist bombers aren't targeting military installations or personnel. They're going after civilians. Both sides have done reprehensible things, but only one side is advocating wiping the other out, and it's not the Israelis. As for the U.S.'s actions, war is brutal. We didn't start it, but what the hell did those maniacs think we were going to do? Lay down after Sept. 11th? Send a note to those responsible saying; "Please don't do that again, pretty please." This is what happens you commit a hideous act of terroism against a superpower, you get the crap bombed out of you. And in that campaign, innoncents will be hurt. That's war, that's life. But if you want to tell everyone in N.Y. and D.C. that we should have just licked our wounds and done squat, then be my guest. Just send a letter to a NYC firehouse, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

Well we COULD HAVE chosen the route of international law, but that would be messy, requiring evidencem, and actually persuing the actual guilty parties, rather than painting an entire country as 'the enemy'.

Instead we hacve this vague 'war on terrorism' which will never end, and we have our ouwn govenrment telling us that we're all going to die anyway (well not exactly but they ARE pretty much admitting that even after we spend tons of money and they take all of OUR rights away we're STILL probably going to be victims of dirty bombs, nuclear attacks or any other number of horror.


Actually some terrorists attack mainly military or 'hard targets' and some target cvilivians. It doesn't matter because the reason they are categotaized as 'terrorists' is because they don't have an actual, official country or army.


Governments in power ALWAYS call non govermnetal groups fighting them 'terrorists'. During the Viet Nam war the US quite often refered to the Viet Cong as terrorists. Durinf the Revolutionary War the British basically looked at the Americans as bunch of terrorists. The Serbs called the fighers in Kosovo terrorists and the Russians say the same thing about the Chechens.

Unfortunately the only really way for a lot of these groups to shed the terrorist label is for them to kill so many people that they actualy end up 'winning' the war and getting their own country.

[Jedieb]

Still what the Israels did was just wrong, it was about as bad as what the Germans did in WW II (they targeted civilians a lot it was part of their strategy) I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of Israel strategy to try to influence the Palestians but I don't think it will work in this case.
I agree with you. They should have found another way to take him out. Even if their intelligence was faulty, there's no excuse for such a high loss of civilian life. Sharon's labeling of the mission as a success made it even worse. Then again, it's easy for me and you to say this, we don't have city buses blowing up in our hometown every month. It's the day after day carnage that has driven Israel to this. Both sides can point the finger at each other and label the other as murderers. Which is why I can't even begin to see an end to this unless a THIRD party intervenes.

Larry Miller also made a comment that Sharon is incapable of reaching any kind of real compromise with the Israelis. Because the second he does, he'll probably be killed by Palestinian extremist who want nothing but dead Israelis. Kind of hard for old Yasser to make a deal isn't it? Sharon probably has his own extremist to deal with. Again, where does it end?

[Loki Ahmrah]

As far as I am concerned, the loss of even one innocent life for taking out the entire Taliban in one fell swoop is completely unnaceptable and we should be intolerant to the killing of innocent people on any level. That's my brief and simple view on things.

[Jedieb]

I'm sorry Loki, but the world in which that view is a legitimate option, DOES NOT EXIST. It never has, and it never will.


Governments in power ALWAYS call non govermnetal groups fighting them 'terrorists'. During the Viet Nam war the US quite often refered to the Viet Cong as terrorists. Durinf the Revolutionary War the British basically looked at the Americans as bunch of terrorists. The Serbs called the fighers in Kosovo terrorists and the Russians say the same thing about the Chechens.

In many cases that's true. But Hamas and Al-Queda AREN'T governments, they're terroist organizations. They're not paving roads, building schools, and collecting taxes. They send people into shopping malls to blown themselves up, adn then take credit for it the next day. The Taliban supported Al-Queda, so we took action against them. I have no doubt that the situation in Afgahnistan will continue to get messy. Pretty soon, rival factions are going to start playing the U.S. military in an effort to get it to do some of its dirty work for them. It was common sense that this was going to get messy, but filing a brief with an international court was NOT a legitimate option. Not when workers were still clearing rubble at the WTC. Eventually, we will have to pull out after some kind of government gets established. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the same old faces return to power. There is no simple and easy solution to this, and I'm not too thrilled with the fact that it's up to Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft to handle the situation. Both sides of the aisle have gone back to partisan politics, and both will use the current situation to their advantage. But SOMETHING had to be done. The response could have been far worse.

[Admiral Lebron]

Yeah, Loki that never will as there will always be that one dumbass walking around the battle site.

[Loki Ahmrah]

It never has, and it never will.

How optamistic! :rolleyes

[Khan Surak]

I don't agree with Carr about the "No major European war from 1816 to 1914".

The Franco-Austrian War(1859) saw the uprise of Nationalism in Austrian-occupied Italy, as well as in the Hapsburg Empire. In 1858, France allied with Sardinia to drive the Austrians off the peninsula. After a muddled campaign, French regulars smashed through the Austrian center at Solferino. Casualties in the largest battle since Leipzig shocked the two Emperors into agreeing on peace terms. Napoleon III's army was lucky, and ended the war with complacent confidence that would be shattered in 1870.

The Russo-Turkish War(1877-88) foreshadowed the 20th century Balkan wars, with "ethnic cleansing" and refugees. Russia invaded the Ottoman(Turkish) Empire to protect Bulgaria's Christians against their Muslim rulers. After dragged out campaign, Turks retreated to Istanbul under the guns of the British Mediterranean Fleet. Russia agreed to terms. :D

The Boer War(1899-1902) was both a colonial war for the British and the largest war the Empire was involved in from 1815 to 1914, with 500,000 British troops involved. The Boer's smokeless powder made their trenches invisible and removed the smokescreen that had before afforded protection to infantry pressing an attack. Like many later guerilla wars, the Boer War did enormous damage without-producing a clearcut victory. Still, it was a major European "colonial" war.

The Russo-Japanese war (1904-5). Russia never commited the bulk of it's vast armies(4.5 million) to the war, as most of the fighting was on the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria. Though it was not overly European, it employed the same tactics as in WW I. It showed how a smaller power could defeat a stronger, but less commited power.

And, as forementioned by my colleague, The Crimean War(1853-56)was no walk in the park. And Prussia's destruction of the army of the Second French Empire in the summer of 1870 in the Franco Prussian War(1870-71) began a new military era. There was no doubt that Moltke's victory was strategic, for French tactics, morale, and weapons were in many respects superior to those of the Prussians.


and then the use of the twin bombs in Japan, both cases were atrocities, though the later may have been neccessary

Yes, they were necessary to prevent an invasion of the Japanese mainland that would've dwarfed Overlord. Hirohito was prepared to mobilize the entire civilian population of Japan into a fighting force be it necessary.

btw, most of this information can be found in "Atlas of World Military History". Excellent resource :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Okay after a little research here is my opinion, first off I should of clairfied what I meant, I meant there was no major war that should have given the signals of what was to happen in WW I. Most of these wars you mentioned, yes you are right were important but not devestating in terms of lose of life as WW I was. I am going to take them chronologically and I might add a few more that I have found

The Crimean War (1854-6)

Now I had forgotten some of the details of it (its been a while since I studied it) but really the war was about Russia trying to gain terriotry in the Black Sea, so then the war became another one about the Balance of Power, you had Britian backing Turkey to prevent the Russians from gaining Black Sea access, France and Sardinia (a kingdom in Italy) too joined the British side and Austria sided with Russia. Russia and Austria lost and the result of the war Russia and Austria was severly weakened as powers (part of the reason both Empires started crumbling) the only other significant event to come from the war was Sardinia who gained momentium for unification, and this lead to

The Italian War (I think it is also called the Franco-Austrian War) in 1859 which helped to Unify Italy still it was pretty local affair but Napoleon the III backed Sardinia against Austria and Austria let Italy go after some fighting.

In the 1860's there were several wars involving Prussia most local but there was one major one called The Austrian-Prussian or Seven Weeks' War, it was a quick affair and with this Prussia was close to unifying German which happend in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 which was really over who should be the monarch in Spain. Well Germany invaded and as in WWII the Germans marched into Paris with William I being crowned Kaiser. Again all of this wars except the Crimean War had been local affairs but still important in political terms.

Now the others the Russian-Turkish war almost broke out as a contential war but Bismark came in and and set up a Peace conference in Berlin, which settled the issue. Now the Boer war didn't involve any other powers so I don't consider it a major European war, it is a major colonial war that I agree but deals with different issues and was not important in Europe. Now the last one the Russian-Japanesse war was major and was very bloody as I recall and there were some signs from that about what was to come, but good old Teddy Roosevelt steped in and had them come to terms so the worst was averted there. Also there was also the Balkian wars which are important because they lead to the independence of Serbia, which in turn lead to serbians in Austria pushing for Independence there which lead to the assissination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand which began WWI.
I think that sums them up. Sorry for the rant but I didn't want all that research to go to waste I do think that sums up most of European history in the 19th century (though I am sure I left out some important events)

[Khan Surak]

Oh, alright. Yes, I agree with you there. The only war that resembled WWI was the Russo-Japanese. :)

And yes, compared to previous centuries, this one was rather bloodless in European terms.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It was bloody and a mess if Teddy hadn't stepped in it it could have been worse, now the the Russian-Turkish war could have been a mess too, it could have spread into a world war if it wasn't for Bismark. Also I need to say that I mispoke most of these wars were significant just not deveastating except for the Russo-Japanese one, the others were more important in terms of unifying Germany and Italy and weakening Russia and Austria.