IDF vs NATO

[John Kettler]

Lethaface,

I think there's a big difference between shooting guns into the air in celebration and shooting them in anger. The former is an Arab tradition that dates back to muzzle loading jezzails. Granted, the volume of fire is much higher now! Discharging guns into the air on a national holiday, unless done by some oppressed group, strikes me as celebratory. Nor is this practice peculiar to the Arabs. People do it here in the States, and every year there are dire TV warnings about the danger and the legal risks, plus occasional stories of a spent bullet that scared, injured or killed someone.

LUCASWILLEN05,

Welcome aboard!

Glad you liked my "Modest Proposal." Am not holding my breath it'll be adopted, but it did seem like a clever approach with a solid marketing basis to back it.

cabal23,

Was unaware of that book by him, but have read several others. Will keep an eye out for it.

Bolteg,

I tried like crazy to get the slew of ZU-23/s, ZPU-4s, ZSU-23/4s, S-60s and other goodies into the game, only to fail miserably. Even if not allowed to interfere with tacair and helos, I felt they formed an important part of Syrian defense potential.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Yair Iny]

Lethaface, Bolteg,

I have to disagree with the whole "civilised" vs "uncivilised/primitive" angle, when it comes to the West vs Arabs in general or Israel vs Palestinians in particular. It is a real bugbear of mine. I have first hand knowledge of how Palestinians (and Israeli Arabs) live, from my time in the IDF and from previously living in Israel for many years.

Arabs live in very family oriented society in which loyalty is first to one's family, then to one's immediate neighbourhood and only later to the more abstract structures such as nation, government etc. We see that as primitive but that is the core strength of their society. For example, rarely will an Arab family go hungry unless everyone else around them is hungry too (as in Gaza for the past 3 years). Contrast this with Western urban society.

As to the supposed "barbarism" of their fighting ways, i.e. suicide bombings, targeting civilians, not letting the red cross access prisoners (e.g. Gilad Shalit). It all looks good at first glance. But then you need to remember that a. they have not the means to target the military in any effective manner, b. the war to them is far more total than it is for the average Israeli (and of course, the average American/European), c. with all its "civilisation", the West has killed far more civilians than the Arabs have (in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) Israel killed (not purposefully, as some here like to claim, but rather mostly through indifference) more Palestinian civilians in one month during "Cast Lead" than the Palestinians did since suicide bombings commenced circa 1992. Is that more civilised than a guy blowing himself up in a bus? At face value, yes, but if you really think about it, it is only more clinical to kill with artillery or bombs, but not one bit more civilised.

[Vark]

1. The German Final solution was a product of anti-semitism and theories of racial superiority. The Arab/Persian states/territories, especially Iran, Gaza and the West Bank mimic both these motivators, especially targeting the younger generation with quite vile educational material and TV programmes. The Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem chided Hitler on the slow pace of the initial wave of exterminations and backed his attempt to irradicate most of the Jewish race. So, no not really that different a motive. Oh, and do watch the programmes comparing the Jews either to dogs or apes!

2. The Original Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, sorry I know it's not PC to say it, but Jerusalem, a Christian city for some 350 years, was captured by the Muslim Arabs. Burning down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built over the place where Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, was bound to cause a little animosity!! Imagine the Muslim response to the capturing of Mecca and the trashing of the Ka'bah?

3. You are right the real problem came with the British, but it was the 1915 Sykes-Picot accord, promising British support for an Arab homeland and the 1917 Balfour Declaration, promising to support an independent state of Israel that was bound to muddy the water.

4. It is tempting to take a relatavistic stance when looking at the Arab and Jewish actions prior to WWII and towards the end of the mandate, for the sake of being 'fair' but an objective observer is more likely to see the Jews as more sinned against than sinning. I was shocked at how many were murdered during that period with retaliations an obvious response. On a different point if a nation deserved a state by the ammount of effort it exerted, to improve the country it lived in the Jews would win hands down, hence the massive pre-war arab imigration to take advantage of the work opportunities.

5. As somebody who was taken around concentration camps when young and who walked around Yad Vashem for four hours in a numb daze (it was the first time the figure six million really hit home) I'm sorry if you think that I abused the term holocaust. A study of the language used, especially by Iran is quite chilling and makes oblique references to wiping out Israel and using fire to cleanse the place. The wording is deliberately designed to invoke the holocaust, as is the end result. An Iranian nuclear attack would only have to target a few key population centres for that goal to be virtually realised and if you do not believe the Iranian rhetoric then remember, Hitler made clear his ambitions in the late 30's and we chose not to believe him.

6. Would the US really go to the wall for Israel, especially after perhaps years of carefully coreographed propaganda, remember the Arabs believe their greatest strength, regarding Israel, is time. Western democracies, by their nature are short term organisations, despotic one party states can wait years, and once the Iranians get their nukes they can pick their moment. If they were clever they would use a proxy to deliver the weapons and then appeal to the UN about being victims of Zionist aggression, that always seems to go down well.

7. Israel can loose a war, an EMP pulse would reduce most of the IDF to an inert lump, or a chemical attack or blizzard of rockets or introduction of new technologies could quite easily replicate a 1973 style situation. Denial of server attacks using zombie PC's could gain precious time for a successful assault. In fact an EMP attack would so degrade the civilian technological infrastructure that you would not need a conventional attack to succeed in your strategic objectives. Remember also, you do not need to defeat Israel quickly just persue strategies which will make the current Jewish state unsustainable.

8. As for extremism, it is a subjective word. Alot of Westerners who work in Arab states find the real culture, not the ersatz expatocentric culture, to be extreme, in contrast to the Western model. So extreme in what sense?

[panzermartin]

Can someone shed a light on why Jews from the age of Pharaohs to Hitler and today's Mid East have been a constant target of hate/pogroms/killings? This sort of "witch hunting" is quite bizarre and unique in human history.

[Smaragdadler]

Patriarchal Exclusive Monotheism.

[Yair Iny]

Can someone shed a light on why Jews from the age of Pharaohs to Hitler and today's Mid East have been a constant target of hate/pogroms/killings? This sort of "witch hunting" is quite bizarre and unique in human history.

Because due to their religion, they neither proselytised nor assimilated, so neither grew nor disappeared, instead remaining a visible, somewhat aloof minority. It didn't help of course that Christianity evolved from Judaism and that the Jews had at least some part in Jesus' killing by the Romans, nor did it help that for centuries Christians weren't allowed to lend money (at least not with interest), which you can imagine made Jewish money lenders very popular Hey, some people, even in this forum, have used the phrase "Jew Bankers" in the past

[Khane]

+1 for Yair #102

All the barbaric/civilized (Arab/West) is complete nonsense. Barbaric and Civilized are both very loaded expressions and are reciprocally used by both sides. Each side declares that he only performs "civilized" actions like blowing up civilians in a bus or dropping bombs and rockets on other civilians.

I have no idea what's in the minds of the Israeli political and military decision makers when they decide and order to drop bombs and rockets on civilian populated areas to reach armed fighters/terrorists hiding inside or in the minds of Palestinians who plan and order to blow up civilians in Tel Aviv. I guess that on both sides it is not from mere sadism or viciousness but simply a cold decision and as Yair wrote mostly through indifference.

[Smaragdadler]

... they neither proselytised ..

...

'They' proselytized whole kingdoms. From the second century BC until the fourth century AD, Judaism was the main monotheistic religion in the world. Pagan ruling class would switch to Judaism and with them the whole populace had to follow. (Yemen or North Africa, Khazars in South Eastern Europe). That's why there are voices that say, IF there are 'real' descendant of the historic Jewish people, highest chance to find them is between the Palestinians. That's the whole hidden irony about the situation. What is now called 'the Jews' is result of said non-assimilation during the dark ages/medieval times.

[Yair Iny]

'They' proselytized whole kingdoms. From the second century BC until the fourth century AD, Judaism was the main monotheistic religion in the world. Pagan ruling class would switch to Judaism and with them the whole populace had to follow. (Yemen or North Africa, Khazars in South Eastern Europe). That's why there are voices that say, IF there are 'real' descendant of the historic Jewish people, highest chance to find them is between the Palestinians. That's the whole hidden irony about the situation. What is now called 'the Jews' is result of said non-assimilation during the dark ages/medieval times.

Smaragdadler, you are correct. The story of the Khazars is well known to me, and in the past 60 years, Jews were brought to Israel from Ethiopia and Yemen. I meant this in a more general sense looking back over 3000 years. The period you are talking about is relatively short and is an exception to the fact that Judaism is in general a non proselytising religion, as opposed to Christianity and Islam which could be said are based on converting others. Also, bear in mind that being the largest monotheistic religion doesn't mean much given that Islam didn't exist and Christianity was in its infancy

[Smaragdadler]

Judaism (old testament) is an monotheistic synopsis of diverse ancient near East, mainly Babylonian/Assyrian mystery tales which in turn go back to the Sumerian's. 'Christianity' is an amalgam of Judaism and diverse Hellenistic mystic traditions/cults later mixed over the time with European paganism. 'Islam' is an mixture of ancient Arabic paganism, Judaism and adaption of Gnostic traditions.

That all in turn is of course just a very sketchy summing-up made up by myself.

[Smaragdadler]

About the actual question of this topic: Of course I would buy an IDF-modul. Preferentially in the said 'Armageddon'-design with switchable factions and Hezbollah, Phalange, Hamas and Fatah militias and all the rest + some renegade right wing Jewish settler groups. But I also want NATO from Cyprus to Spitzbergen and 'Normandy' with SS, Luftwaffe ground troups + Ost Hiwis with full insignia. That's just the wargamer in me and has nothing to do with political preferences (never had them for anyone in the first place). And it will also don't drive me to masturbate before Führer-pictures. ;]

But in the end Battefront will have to do all the work, so it's also all their decision, what they do. I will all take, what's on offer.

[Bigduke6]

Vark,

I think you are underestimating how militarized the Israeli economy is, and parallel to that, overestimating how viable the Israeli economy would be if it didn't have all this military money flowing through it.

Conversion from a military-geared economy to a economic competition-based economy is neither quick nor easy; Israel right now is the world's 10th largest arms exporter. Could Israel's arms industry survive at anything like its present levels, if the IDF stopped buying equipment? How about traditional Israeli exports like high tech, medical equipment, communications, machinery, and so on? The US right now buys something like 40 per cent of all Israeli exports - if the US government were not particularly inclined to support Israel, and support the sale of Israeli products in the US, how much of those exports would be sold in the US in a peace?

And then there is US aid, every year it's something like 2.5 billion dollars in outright grants, and another 4 or 5 billion dollars in low interest loan guarantees. The Israeli economy is something like 200 billion dollars; if the US cash spigot gets turned off, that's something like a 7 - 10 per cent overnight hit to the entire Israeli economy.

You don't have to be a Nobel Economic prize winner to predict what would come next: fiscal contraction, interest rates through the roof, unemployment, widespread shutdown of capital-intensive business, depression. And that would of course force the shekel to tank, which in turn would make energy - of which Israel has very little of its own - all that much more expensive, which in turn would feed the depressionary cycle.

You want an example of what happens to a country geared for war, when peace breaks out, just look at Russia 1991. That is the scale of economic shock a peace would, short to medium term, probably inflict on the Israeli economy.

Now, long term, sure, conversion to a peace economy probably would do the Israeli economy a lot of good. Israeli society is flexible and economically-minded like Russia never will be. So all those career IDF soldiers, were they willing to retrain, they could start businesses or get jobs contributing to the economy. Maybe the people that make Kfir and Merkava, they could eventually score some start-up money and make short-hop jets and earth-moving equipment.

The Germans and the Japanese in their day have very militarized economies, and if there is one thing post-WW2 has taught us, it is that cultures with strong work ethnics will eventually succeed economically. I have no doubt that eventually, given sufficient (probably Chinese) seed money, Israel's work force could make the Israeli economy quite as wealthy and efficient as say Finland or South Korea's.

But to get to that long term result, the Israeli economy would have to be overhauled, and the decision-makers choosing that route would have to explain their choice to every single unemployed soldier, arms factory worker, security guard, and IDF civilian support business owner suddenly made destitute, because all of a sudden a peace broke out in the Holy Land.

It seems to me, an Israeli politician choosing that route would, sign his own political death warrant. Add into that all the other imperatives for keeping the war going - it's Israeli territory, the Palestinians are terrorists, no compromise on Holy Land, we can't trust the Arabs, Jews will never again negotiate from a position of weakness, whatever you want - and to me it is really clear why the people making decisions in Israel, don't seem very motivated to end the war.

The thing to remember is that it's not just the Israelis. The real problem of the conflict is that there are too many people on both sides who stand to lose, both politically but particularly financially, if a real peace breaks out.

This naturally leaves a relatively small group of people - the Palestinians in their camps and the Israelis living within rocket range of the camps, or conscripted to be soldiers raiding those camps - out in the cold. Since the war goes on, life really sucks for those people. You could even argue that as the conflict goes on, life sucks also for lots of people at greater distance: all the millions of people harassed in airports because air travel now must be secured from Islamic terrorists, the US taxpayers forced to shell out big so US armies can invade Islamic countries, and of course political leaders in countries from Red China to Malaysia to Russia who because of the Palestinian Question and its downstream effects, have more trouble dealing with their home-grown irate Moslems.

But the bottom line is a simple one. The people that could end the war, the decision makers in the Occupied Territories and Jerusalem, and the decision-makers backing them; that relatively small group of people have careers and personal livelihoods that depend on the Palestinian conflict continuing indefinately. The people that suffer from the war, for practical purposes, aren't making the decisions. So the war goes on.

[cabal23]

"Let's turn this conflict on its head a little bit. Instead of trying to figure out, why it is the Israelis or the Palestinians keep doing something to keep the peace progress from moving forward, maybe the question to ask is, who is it that benefits if this conflict keeps going on?

The answer is, I think, a whole lot of people, on both sides."'

Just playing devil advocate but couldn't you say the same about the US involvement in the middle east? How many billions have we spent to support the Iraq/Afghan war? Those billions of dollars must be going somewhere. Lets face it, war is profitable and an inevitable evil that will never go away. Someone said it best when they said this has been going on since the 7th century in different forms. I think there is a much bigger picture here than just the IDF/Palestine people. History shows us that much at least. But I am no fool not to see that history is written by the victors. This is a very deep topic that goes many levels deep. Great debate!

[John Kettler]

In watching the Adolf Hitler episode of the series Color of War, I just heard a German soldier's letter home in the days of the great Barbarossa victories. He talks about the thousands of Russians captured over the weeks by his battalion, which must care for them. He then says two things decidedly damning. First, he says, "...Some we shoot there and then," and closes by asking his wife not to read the letter to their son!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lethaface]

Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment for a complete reaction.

Almost all here have good and valid points but don't necessarily agree on al points. A nice indication of the complexity of the subject.

Yair Iny, Nice post #102!

Perhaps I have been a little unclear (beer ) about what I ment with civilised / uncivilised. The definition of being 'civilised' depends on where you are coming from. In the west people tend to look at Palestine's as uncivilised people because of their culture. I think that is plain tunnel vision. The thing about shooting in the air was more joking then serious. What I ment is that Arabic people generally tend channel their emotions more visible in public then, for example, Europeans. Hence the burning of flags et cetera. This doesn't mean we are more 'civilised', we are just different. (Apart from the fact that being 'civilised' doesn't make one better a better human then for example an Amazone Indian).

Regarding the governments I have used the term 'civilised' as well, perhaps confusing. The Palestinian government (or lack there of) was and is plagued by corruption and was, in the past at least, not democratic. Israels government is democratic and is a much more capable organization. Perhaps I should change the word civilised into 'developed'. That is the reason I expect more of the Isreal government then the Palestinians. Their government is relatively young and they didn't have the chance/will to build up their country yet.

I too think that dropping a Jdam from a high attitude on a house is in no way more civilised then shooting a rocket on a house. Form is not really of importance, it is the consequences that are.

Cheers!

[panzermartin]

Hey, some people, even in this forum, have used the phrase "Jew Bankers" in the past

Yes I admit quite an overused cliche' but not an exaggeration either as history shows

And BigDuke has an interesting point. I always thought war is the last resort of capitalism. When things don't go well for the markets a war is a guaranteed way out. Think how WW2 transformed in crisis USA to a superpower making an almost laughable army the most well equipped and powerful of the 20th century with huge military contracts and worldwide exports. Since WW2 people have died in meaningless wars with the only profits being on the side of the war&reconstruction businessmen. That's the sole reason for constantly inventing new enemies to keep people on alert. Terrorism is the new trend, as it was communism&capitalism. I'm quite skeptical of what this new crisis will bring as sometimes I take world peace as granted. An advanced nation like America went to war with Iraq based on fake propaganda materials like WMDs. Hopefully a WW3 wont be as easy to ignite. I guess europeans have learned the hard way that war isnt about CGI graphics. Or at least I hope so.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

2. The Original Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, sorry I know it's not PC to say it, but Jerusalem, a Christian city for some 350 years, was captured by the Muslim Arabs. Burning down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built over the place where Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, was bound to cause a little animosity!! Imagine the Muslim response to the capturing of Mecca and the trashing of the Ka'bah?

I think you´re mixing up things a litttle bit.

I think it´s quite difficult to say from when exactly Jerusalem would be considered to be christian.

anywho:

Jerusalem was captured by the Arabs in 637.

The first crusade captured Jerusalem in 1099.

Hardly a knee jerk reaction ;O)

[Smaragdadler]

One could say that the crusades where a 'plot' by Vatican to channel the inner violence between the Chistian nations of Europe outward for expansion. There is also the point that at times of crusades the Arabs where more developed in the 'sciences' than catholic Europe. All the classical 'pagan' knowledge (Platon, Aristoteles etc.pp.) lost in the Dark Ages was brought back to Europe through the Templars and others. That in turn would be the seed for the big Christian schism (Luther) and later the Renaissance.

[Smaragdadler]

Very big point is the Arabic number system in mathematics. Europe was still counting in Roman numbers. But with the introduction of the Arabic system potential of economics would really 'start to lift off'...

[bitchen frizzy]

The arrival of Arabic numerals in Europe predated the Crusades. Arabic knowledge of all sorts was gained largely through commerce and research, and would have reached Europe anyway. The Templars had little to do with it, outside of pulp fiction novels. It's historically inaccurate to attribute this process to the Crusades.

[Smaragdadler]

Of course its an over-simplification, the transfer of ideas is not a clean cut black and white issue. But for ideas to really 'ignite and spread in the masses big' there are always the big historical happenings in the background. Templars where the one who introduced trans-national banking system in Europe. Has nothing to do with pulp fiction.

[Lethaface]

Vark, I think it is incorrect to state that everything started by the Muslims conquering the holy city of Jerusalem. Like I said before, in ancient times it was literally cool to conquer other nations and oppress and or slaughter the people. It was something to feel proud of. Later they 'invented' that those same things needed to be done to 'civilize' the pagans/*. Since then a lot of people have been slaughtered in the name of good, which is now called capitalism/democracy. (Which is the best we have imo, still it won't stop others abusing it's principles for their own benefits).

You have a point that some things that have been said by Arab leaders can compare to some things that have said by the leaders of the Nazi regime. However, this is like opening a glass door to see through it. There were plenty of Arab leaders who did nothing like it, and you now generalize them all like all Arabs want to utterly slaughter all the Jews. This is something I call a fallacy.

One more fact I would like you to know about: The words of Ahmadinejad (and not only him) are not always correctly translated in Western press. I have direct first hand and very reliable second hand information about that. Like the old Dutch ambassador of Iran stating this in a depth interview. Somehow these things never get equal press coverage as the wrong translations themselves.

In the west (and every other nation) we are trapped in the information that is provided by the free-press or state-press, depending on the country. In general free-press is a lot better then state-controlled-press, but free-press doesn't mean that you will get a complete objective picture of world-wide state affairs. And how free is some of the proclaimed free-press?

I can be so disappointed in people I know that literally believe everything that is said in 'the' news-bulletin or respected newspapers.

In all honesty Vark, I feel that your over emphasizing the bad things that have been done by Muslims and are sort of approving the bad things the Jewish / Christians have done as a appropriate reaction.

Since almost the whole world seems to do the same I have chosen to side with the Palestinians quite some time ago. These are just humans trapped in such a bad situation that they do awkward things. They also fall for the same fallacies others are falling for, only in a different form.

Perhaps others will say the opposite of me? I don't know but I don't think I blame the whole situation on Israel or the Jewish people.

Actually for me Religion is some of a non-issue in this. Replace them with A or B and it would still be the same. The problem is the Humans believing (their own) lies and tunnelvision or groupthink on a huge scale. Like I have read in one of my first books about psychology, there are three things people act upon:

1. Rewards

2. Punishments

3. Cognitions (based on previous rewards/punishments)

In the end we are all in this for ourselves. Probably I am writing all this because I hope to get better of it someday. For example, I get sick of reading newspapers where everyday innocent people die for some st00pid reason. Not that I'm actually convinced that me writing this will lead to a better world...

Might as well open another beer!

Cheers!

[para]

Vark, I think it is incorrect to state that everything started by the Muslims conquering the holy city of Jerusalem. Like I said before, in ancient times it was literally cool to conquer other nations and oppress and or slaughter the people. It was something to feel proud of. Later they 'invented' that those same things needed to be done to 'civilize' the pagans/*. Since then a lot of people have been slaughtered in the name of good, which is now called capitalism/democracy. (Which is the best we have imo, still it won't stop others abusing it's principles for their own benefits).

You have a point that some things that have been said by Arab leaders can compare to some things that have said by the leaders of the Nazi regime. However, this is like opening a glass door to see through it. There were plenty of Arab leaders who did nothing like it, and you now generalize them all like all Arabs want to utterly slaughter all the Jews. This is something I call a fallacy.

One more fact I would like you to know about: The words of Ahmadinejad (and not only him) are not always correctly translated in Western press. I have direct first hand and very reliable second hand information about that. Like the old Dutch ambassador of Iran stating this in a depth interview. Somehow these things never get equal press coverage as the wrong translations themselves.

In the west (and every other nation) we are trapped in the information that is provided by the free-press or state-press, depending on the country. In general free-press is a lot better then state-controlled-press, but free-press doesn't mean that you will get a complete objective picture of world-wide state affairs. And how free is some of the proclaimed free-press?

I can be so disappointed in people I know that literally believe everything that is said in 'the' news-bulletin or respected newspapers.

In all honesty Vark, I feel that your over emphasizing the bad things that have been done by Muslims and are sort of approving the bad things the Jewish / Christians have done as a appropriate reaction.

Since almost the whole world seems to do the same I have chosen to side with the Palestinians quite some time ago. These are just humans trapped in such a bad situation that they do awkward things. They also fall for the same fallacies others are falling for, only in a different form.

Perhaps others will say the opposite of me? I don't know but I don't think I blame the whole situation on Israel or the Jewish people.

Actually for me Religion is some of a non-issue in this. Replace them with A or B and it would still be the same. The problem is the Humans believing (their own) lies and tunnelvision or groupthink on a huge scale. Like I have read in one of my first books about psychology, there are three things people act upon:

1. Rewards

2. Punishments

3. Cognitions (based on previous rewards/punishments)

In the end we are all in this for ourselves. Probably I am writing all this because I hope to get better of it someday. For example, I get sick of reading newspapers where everyday innocent people die for some st00pid reason. Not that I'm actually convinced that me writing this will lead to a better world...

Might as well open another beer!

Cheers!

good post mate

[Lethaface]

Vark,

After rereading the thread I want ask you this question:

Do you believe in a Zionist destiny?

[...]I'm not excusing attrocities perpetrated by extreme Israeli groups, who took notions of self-defence and Zionist nationalistic destinty too far, [..]

--

Cheers, Para!

[souldierz]

Ill drink to that.

I agree with Para,that's well put Leathaface.

To get a clear view on world events and what makes them turn, you first need to clear your head from all bias views.With that done, people will gain a better understanding of the overall picture.

Its still considered cool to dominate and conquer in our times just as in the ancient times.Human nature hasn't changed much, if not at all and people will always feel their views and ways are superior to the next mans views and ways and will fight to the death for it.Its a matter of who is stronger for that time.Our part of the world for some of us might be peaceful from these things for now, but if any power gets a chance to dominate or conquer any other power that seems to be weak, they will jump for it just as quick as our ancestors in ancient times did, militarily or politically .If you conquer in our world in the physical form(Alexander of Macedonia) or mental form(Jesus of Nazareth) your name will shoot straight to the top on the all time high scores list of our little planet and that's what a lot of people in power aim for,legendary status.The thing with today's world is, the webs we weave are so intertwined that a hick up can effect the rest of the world quicker then ever before.Look at the economy troubles now and how many nations are involved and dragged into this struggle.Also its very easy nowadays to mobilize armies into position so there's a lot of stand offs and people of power are waiting for their chance.