Cpl Steiner Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I was wondering what people's views are on the worrying development today that HAMAS, an avowed terrorist organization, has just won the Palestinian elections? It surely cannot bode well for the Middle East peace process. I don't know if it will have a bearing on the back story for CM:SF (probably not) but it is certain to increase tensions in the region. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Actually, it's written H.A.M.A.S. Check your spelling. It depends on what kind of course they take. Sometimes power increases responsibility (like with PLO), but of course, at the same time Hamas might not be capable of that. Personally, I'm slightly pessimistic... but what the long term implications are, is impossible to tell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I think there has been a middle east peace process in name only since well before the "Road Map" was announced. My best guess is that this really clears the way for Israel to continue down the road of imposing a "Two State" solution as it has with Gaza and the "Barrier" with the Palestinians just watching on. No ideal, or indeed fair, but it is a solution of sorts which in it's way will be better than another 40 years of occupation. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Oh look politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Speedy, It's not politics it's conjecture, it doesn't get to be "Politic" till someone starts to say what is right or wrong, who is good or bad. Speculating on the effects of a Hamas victory, is fine, as long as people don't make it political. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Actually, it is politics (notice that we all are voicing our opinions on whether it is good or bad), and has nothing to do with CM:SF. Then again, with all these Iran threads in the Shock Force forum... oh well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Well In a way your right Sergei, but I tend to think that discussing the security aspects of things like this is a lot different from the pitched battles that erupted during the US Presidential elections. Then you couldn't make a point or take a balanced view without being called either a Facist or Commie by someone. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Everyone, Thanks for your replies. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. For instance, I've just seen on the news that the Palestinians are almost entirely dependant on aid from the EU and from the USA. Hamas will therefore have to make some concessions or risk losing the aid. In some ways, it might turn out to be a good thing if Hamas are forced to be more pragmatic. However, if they refuse to compromise and lose the aid, who knows what will happen. Speedy, Unfortunately, the setting of CM:SF in the Middle East in the very near future makes it hard to discuss anything to do with CM:SF without making some reference to Israel and the Palestinians. That's just the way things are. The Israel-Palestine issue is at the heart of what makes the Middle East a likely setting for a future conflict. Battlefront could have set the war in a fictitious country - like Frederick Forsyth did in "The Dogs of War" - but they chose to pick a real place. I therefore think discussions of this sort on the sidelines whilst we wait for something more substantial about the game to discuss, as long as it isn't too heated, are a good way of keeping interest going in the forum. Witness the "Alien Conspiracy" thread started by John Kettle - it had only a vague connection to the game but was nevertheless a very entertaining thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I also believe that HAMAS is more likely to take a more pragmatic style. When it's their turn to actually govern rather than fight, most radicals tend to be less, well, radical. Radicalism isn't exactly the best way of successfully governing a delicate country, and I'm sure there are enough heads in HAMAS that understand that. Sure, they'll frequently rile at Israel (they're HAMAS, afterall), but actual violence on HAMAS' part will see a decline. I hope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 From Slate Magazine: "Hamas: Put on a Happy Face President Bush believes in a simple formula. Democracy is good. Terrorism is evil. When democracy is introduced in hostile countries it acts like enchanted water: Apply a drop and liberty flowers. That theory, never plausible, obviously has now been undone: The victory of the radical Islamic organization Hamas in the Palestinian elections demonstrates that democracy and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. Instead of dealing with the topsy-turvy result, the president focused on the sunny side. He said the elections "remind me of the power of democracy" and added, "I like the competition of ideas." Groovy. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, one of Bush's strongest allies in the war on terror, was blunter. He said the result was "very, very, very bad." The president did restate the U.S. position that he will not deal with Hamas, which advocates, among other things, the eradication of Israel. But he never tried to reconcile this position with his glowing remarks about liberty spreading across the Middle East." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted by Speedy: Oh look politics. That would be a premptive strike, another foul neo-con invention I'm sure. The overt politicizing did not start IMHO until this cheap shot. Originally posted by MikeyD: From Slate Magazine... It's a cheap shot because it has at it's premise an oversimplification that borders on the absurd, based on a moronic point of view, but from a certain vantage point a hint of truth to it. It would require time and some latitude on what we can post here from our hosts to explore why it is both true in a very limited sense and false in the greater sense, and why the author and those that think his piece, standing on it's own accurate are, well, plain old idiots. ...or inhabitants of the fever swamp, aka the leftwing of the democrat party, take your pick. As to who is good or bad Peter, I think all those that want to line up and show their support for the terrorists should do so now. If at all possible in an area controlled by the US Army and/or Marines, they should don their suicide bomber vests and approach our forces prepared for what they deseve instead of bombing children on buses and eating dinner in pizza parlors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Speedy: Oh look politics. That would be a premptive strike, another foul neo-con invention I'm sure. The overt politicizing did not start IMHO until this cheap shot. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 "...based on a moronic point of view" Hey, I didn't vote for him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted by Speedy: Oh look politics. My thoughts exactly! Not too many Syrians in Palestine are there? Course... I wouldn't know being from Ostrayia an' all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Cpl Steiner, In actual fact Fredddie Forsyth was found to be "very" involved in a operation which involved a boat called the Albatross being intercepted off the coast of Portugal, full of men and guns. As a war coorespondant he covered the war in Biafra and it's aftermath and knew that region well. Now if you look at the CIA world book under Equatorial Guinea, you find this. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html Equatorial Guinea gained independence in 1968 after 190 years of Spanish rule. This tiny country, composed of a mainland portion plus five inhabited islands, is one of the smallest on the African continent. President OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO has ruled the country for over two decades since seizing power from his uncle, then President MACIAS, in a 1979 coup. ( check MACIAS out on the net, to see the similiarities) Although nominally a constitutional democracy since 1991, the 1996 and 2002 presidential elections - as well as the 1999 and 2004 legislative elections - were widely seen as flawed. The president exerts almost total control over the political system and has discouraged political opposition. Equatorial Guinea has also experienced rapid economic growth due to the discovery of large offshore oil reserves, and in the last decade has become Sub-Saharan Africa's third largest oil exporter. Despite the country's economic windfall from oil production resulting in a massive increase in government revenue in recent years, there have been few improvements in the population's living standards. Go back and read the discription of the country in the first chapter of "The Dogs of War", look at the mainland Africa part of the map. and you'll start to see just how made up it is.... Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Peter, Okay, i take your point about the "Dogs of War". Frederick Forsyth may well have changed the name for reasons other than avoiding politics. I have heard this story before about the book being based on an aborted coup plot, and I suspect there is a lot of truth in the rumour. However, I was only drawing attention to the fact that Battlefront want CM:SF to be firmly based in real world politics and foreign affairs, with a plausible back story. They could have invented a country, as was done for the game "Full Spectrum Warrior", but they chose not to. Personally I don't mind whether the story is a plausible extrapolation of real world events or a complete work of fiction. However, the former does carry the risk of becoming political, by its very nature, but I don't have a problem with that either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Cpl Steiner, Wasn't trying to get at you about the DoW, I think that I prefer a real world situation, as it's to easy to fudge things if you go for an imaginary country. Rather than face up to the hard things, you can " invent" a way out of them, and that in the end tends to undermine the overall game. I tend to find the made up countries a bit one dimensional, and comic book, which doesn't seem to fit with a game that goes to great lengths to simulate real physics , real vehicles and real tactics. It's a bit like cheating, though thats just my view. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Cpl Steiner, Wasn't trying to get at you about the DoW, I think that I prefer a real world situation, as it's to easy to fudge things if you go for an imaginary country.Sorry my reply suggested any offence, as none was taken. Originally posted by Peter Cairns: I tend to find the made up countries a bit one dimensional, and comic book, which doesn't seem to fit with a game that goes to great lengths to simulate real physics , real vehicles and real tactics.I don't have a problem with fictional countries if they make it easier to create a good back story. The game needs to present the player with challenges, and sticking to the real world might make this more difficult if it limits what you can include in the game. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Syria back story, and trust Battlefront to make a good job of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.