Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sgtclub]

Looks like there's going to be an all-out civil war in Gaza. Iraq isn't far behind.

Are we seeing the start of an all Arab civil war (fundamentalists v. non) that will spread throughout the middle east? Is that ultimately a good thing (from an academic view, of course, in the sense of getting finality, not for all of the innocent people whose lives will be lost or torn apart)?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Looks like there's going to be an all-out civil war in Gaza. Iraq isn't far behind.

Are we seeing the start of an all Arab civil war (fundamentalists v. non) that will spread throughout the middle east? Is that ultimately a good thing (from an academic view, of course, in the sense of getting finality, not for all of the innocent people whose lives will be lost or torn apart)?

Aside from the slaughter of millions of innocents, I suppose it could be a good thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Looks like there's going to be an all-out civil war in Gaza. Iraq isn't far behind.

"Going to be"?

Are we seeing the start of an all Arab civil war (fundamentalists v. non) that will spread throughout the middle east?

No. We're seeing a struggle among Palestinians over who will rule them, the natural culmination of Arafat's lousy, lousy rule over the PLO. Hamas was in large part a reaction the corrupt ineffectiveness of the PLO and now Fatah. Arafat is dead, but Palestinians go on paying for his sins.

Is that ultimately a good thing (from an academic view, of course, in the sense of getting finality, not for all of the innocent people whose lives will be lost or torn apart)?

I don't see much good coming of it. Least of all for Israel, which should much rather deal with Fatah than Hamas. The conflict is only going to radicalize Palestinians.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't see much good coming of it. Least of all for Israel, which should much rather deal with Fatah than Hamas. The conflict is only going to radicalize Palestinians.

True. Fatah only wants to push Israel into the sea, while Hamas REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to push Israel into the sea.

aV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
True. Fatah only wants to push Israel into the sea, while Hamas REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to push Israel into the sea.

Fatah only has the nationalism thing going. Hamas has a twisted combo of nationalism and Islamist fervor.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Aside from the slaughter of millions of innocents, I suppose it could be a good thing.

Consider it a thinning of the herd.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
True. Fatah only wants to push Israel into the sea, while Hamas REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to push Israel into the sea.

aV

That's some funny shit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I don't see much good coming of it. Least of all for Israel, which should much rather deal with Fatah than Hamas. The conflict is only going to radicalize Palestinians.

That's only if Hamas wins. Is that a forgone conclusion?

And will other factions, whether inside or outside Pali, join in a serogate war. Will that cause the conflict to spread to other Mid-East countries?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's only if Hamas wins. Is that a forgone conclusion?

And will other factions, whether inside or outside Pali, join in a serogate war. Will that cause the conflict to spread to other Mid-East countries?

From what I read, Hamas has the upper hand. Which makes sense, given that Fatah is a corrupt organization that doesn't stand for much other than Palestinian nationalism, and Hamas isn't weak on that score.

Who else, inside or outside Palestine, would get involved? Other folks may back one side or the other (Iran/Hamas, Saudi Arabia/Fatah), but why would the fighting spread?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Will that cause the conflict to spread to other Mid-East countries?

Well, hey, it's the Middle East.

Maybe some other countries would rather fight the Palistinian's battles than deal with the one's raging in their own backyard. Especially if there's a chance to blame Israel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's some good analysis from the Financial Times.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Clearly there's not an easy or solution to the Kurdistan issue, but a teensy part of me wants to see this happen just to watch the Turks go completely batshit.

Yes - that would be fun to watch.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We retook Kasserine Pass within a week of losing it, and completely overhauled our strategy and tactics as well as our command structure. Eisenhower had the heads of a number of commanders, and learned very quickly. Within 6 weeks, the new commander, Patton, had reversed the momentum and was mopping up the German presence in Tunisia.

So Bush has now had four years in Iraq, and four months of the surge, and you're complaining that we're not patient. Kasserine Pass indeed.

They haven't even completed the surge and he is already calling it a failure. Couldn't he had at least let them get it set up first before he calls it a failure?

As to Kasserine pass, it was Eisenhower's responsiblity (he was the theater commander) and he was not canned. Bush has put in a new theater commander and the guy hasn't event got all his troops off the boats.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
They haven't even completed the surge and he is already calling it a failure. Couldn't he had at least let them get it set up first before he calls it a failure?

As to Kasserine pass, it was Eisenhower's responsiblity (he was the theater commander) and he was not canned. Bush has put in a new theater commander and the guy hasn't event got all his troops off the boats.

Nice try. But the Kasserine Pass is one of the great historical examples of learning from your mistakes, and the so-called surge, actually a return to pre-election troop levels, is, and from the beginning has been, a PR device and a joke.

We need a reality-based President.

And the troops are indeed off the boat - have you been relying on the White House for your facts again? I love the idea that it takes almost six months to deploy 28,000 troops - everyone seems to have taken the slow boat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Nice try. But the Kasserine Pass is one of the great historical examples of learning from your mistakes,

how come D-Day went poorly? What was the Battle of the Bulge?