leicsmac

Speaking personally and subjectively, I don't think so, purely because WW3 would involve the major players against each other and all of them know how that inevitably ends - devastating mutual loss for all of them. And thankfully, all of them are interested in self-preservation enough for them to not trigger that purely because they can. There's going to be a lot of regional conflict, but then that's hardly new and stopping that has been a failure of the powerful international community for a long time now. Edit: Of course, if large tracts of land across the globe become uninhabitable and basic resources become much more costly as a result of increasing temperatures, then that might have an unpleasant effect on the landscape.

And I think that's pretty much been the case throughout recorded history. It's saddening and maddening in equal measure. The UNSC does enough to stop the big boys fighting each other and subsequent nuclear holocaust, but it's sadly not fit for purpose regarding practically every other form of conflict going.

It really is. There's precious few black and white dichotomies in warfare, and this sure as shit isn't one of them. . Local geopolitics does play a part, yeah. The whole thing just seems like so much of a sad and pointless loss of life and innocent people are suffering throughout the region, regardless of alignment, because other people somewhere want to carry on some stupid historical grudge or simply because they want to play powermonger.

Yupppp.... *facepalms and cries again in science communicator*

Saffers will give Francais a hard time, that's for sure. In fact I can see all the matches being within a score or two, but the NH nations on the right side of the ledger in all of them.

...all NH semifinals anyone?

Morbid moral thoughtpoint there IMO. If person A is left deliberately by person B where they can be harmed by person C, and then person C actually pulls the trigger - who is mostly responsible for the harm inflicted on person A? The person who set up the situation, or the person who actually carried out the act? Or both?

The only thing that I'd add to this analysis is that hopefully anyone with a brain sees what you see and sees not only the US as a malign (or simply ignorant where it suits them) influence in this and other cases, but also the other global powers - mostly Russia and China, and also the EU as a bloc and include it in their own analysis of such situations. That really should be obvious IMO.

Quite. Unfortunately, that is the flaw that allows the cycle of violence to keep going round and round.

And again we need a facility where you can use both the and emojis to react to a single post.

Depressing is exactly the right word.

For me that's just viewing something like this as more than a simple black/ white, good guy/bad guy dichotomy (which it obviously is), but I can see the point being made here.

Yeah, the fundie element in the US tend to back Israel for the exact reason you state. Of course, you then have other fundies and nutters there who abhor them because anti-Semitism. As for war, for me it's an insane waste of lives and resources that very, very occasionally, is the only option to prevent even greater death and suffering.

Fair enough. I've no doubt that some talking heads out there are doing exactly that. But, as folks on here have pointed out, the historical context here is really complex and the whole situation is frustrating, sad and difficult to solve (though again I think everyone with power involved could actually act more like sensible adults and therefore make things easier there).

Has anyone here actually done that?

And it isn't what the Israeli hardliners and their backers in the US want, either. And sadly, it appears to be the psychopaths in charge right now, both ways.

... and sometimes political policy is then specifically written with those people and those platforms in mind. It's a brave new world.

That's really complicated tbh, but sadly a lot of it comes down to simple current and historical geopolitics and being made to "pick a side". A rational head can see at least something of a difference between intent and deed in terms of the two, yeah. At the same time, dead is dead and it might be a bit much to expect such rationality from someone who has just lost a loved one to a violent death, no matter the circumstances of it and how "intentional" it was (to say nothing of the possibility of dressing up deliberate reprisals as "whoops, slightly off course missile there").

This. And also expect better in terms of actually doing something to unfvck this terrible problem from both the two leaderships involved and the other global powers.

A few bob says a decent chunk of the current part of this thread is going to get 86ed before noon tomorrow GMT.

Fair enough. We clearly view the matter differently and I don't like the idea of using realpolitik as any kind of justification for the way things have played out given the effects are clearly still being felt today, Of course bigger things were happening at the time, but I don't think that justifies turning a blind eye either. Or if it does, still holding hands up and saying something like "yeah, we're sorry that this is on our watch but our hands are full". If folks think I'm heaping too much moral responsibility on those bigger powers to actually give a shit about those with less power and do something to help, then fair enough too - so it goes.

Those powers (well, the US and UK) were still by far the most powerful entities in the world and had originated the idea that led to this problem in the first place. So yeah, I'm going to place at least a certain amount of responsibility at their door, and I'm not sure why that wouldn't be justified. Sometimes blaming the big boys isn't rhetoric, it's just accurate.

And if the partition had never gone ahead (or perhaps had been better thought through) in the first place there would have been no attacks wholesale. I know other folks think differently in terms of moral responsibility on this matter, but for me it's simple in that it's a long and sordid history of tit for tat, elements on both sides stink and are awful - and both are running the show right now.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this was even close to a possibility?

This is right. Instead, during the war the Israelis either forced that three quarters of a million people to leave or they fled, and the Western powers decided to just watch because it was politically expedient to them, even though the partition that led directly to the war was all their idea in the first place.