Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Swammerdami]

I'm also somewhat surprised with how immediate an attack against Iran's nuclear weapons program is needed now according to some here. I didn't recall that being raised 12 months ago. But Netanyahu wants to do it, and now people are in line, certain that it is the only course of action.

I think they're about five years and five days away from having nuclear weapons. Their program MUST be wiped out urgently in the coming week OR THEY WILL BE LESS THAN FIVE YEARS AWAY!! from having nuclear weapons. Why do you want the entire Middle East destroyed, Jimmy?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was pleased when Trump pulled away from the Ukraine conflict, I'm not pleased as he seems committed to conflict in the Mid-East.

There are a few flash-points in the world that could lead to major powers getting pulled in to a major conflict.

One of them is Ukraine, where Biden was determined to fight to the last Ukrainian. Zelensky wanted NATO to join him in the fight. When the US backed out, it had several good results. The best was when the governments of Europe, always happy to criticize the US for spending so much on war, saw what happened when the US didn't spend so much on war. There are actually movements in Europe for those countries to start taking care of themselves. Pulling out of supporting Ukraine actually averted that flash-point because many people are willing to play "lets you and him fight" but fewer are willing to play "lets you and me fight". Still, seeing people cheering the idea of Germany building up its military to march across Europe to fight Russia had many layers of irony.

One of them is Taiwan, which is on a bit of a back-burner right now.

The worst of them is the Middle East, because it has the potential to pull even more players into it than the other conflicts. It could turn into a much wider war of the West versus the Mid-East. Even though Russia is part of the West (in a retarded step-sibling sort-of way) I can see Russia backing Iran. I can also see China backing Iran. This could get really messy really fast. On one side there is: USA, NATO, Israel. On the other side there is: Iran, Russia, China, much of the Muslim world. There is no good outcome here. I wish people weren't so stupid for war.

 

[Swammerdami]

Iraq was a success. We removed Saddam. Is Iraq a mess now? Yes. But at least Saddam is not in power. Iraq is no longer a tool of evil. I'd say that's a huge success.

Disagree. Iraq was a failure. We removed one evil but then let another take root.

I agree that the Bush-Cheney adventure in Iraq was a colossal failure, but would reason quite differently.

Saddam Hussein was a dreadfully evil person; getting rid of him was a worthy goal. But he was ready to go. The US was putting so much pressure on Iraq that Saddam could have been forced into exile or overthrown by other Baathists. Bush-Cheney may have rushed their invasion to ensure that such a solution did not arise: They wanted to exercise their military and perhaps even satisfy their blood lust.

Instead of a relatively benign outcome, even if it left a Baathist regime in power, Bush-Cheney wasted tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars of treasure,

In 40 years, the Iraq War will have cost "quadrillions". The actual cost was in the several hundreds of billions. It never reached a trillion.

I claim no special expertise on this matter, but ...

The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war. But today, as the United States ends combat in...

www.hks.harvard.edu

The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war. But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.
Citation
Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Linda J. Bilmes. "The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond." Washington Post, September 5, 2010.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Laureate. Are you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Iraq was a success. We removed Saddam. Is Iraq a mess now? Yes. But at least Saddam is not in power. Iraq is no longer a tool of evil. I'd say that's a huge success.

Disagree. Iraq was a failure. We removed one evil but then let another take root.

I agree that the Bush-Cheney adventure in Iraq was a colossal failure, but would reason quite differently.

Saddam Hussein was a dreadfully evil person; getting rid of him was a worthy goal. But he was ready to go. The US was putting so much pressure on Iraq that Saddam could have been forced into exile or overthrown by other Baathists. Bush-Cheney may have rushed their invasion to ensure that such a solution did not arise: They wanted to exercise their military and perhaps even satisfy their blood lust.

Instead of a relatively benign outcome, even if it left a Baathist regime in power, Bush-Cheney wasted tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars of treasure,

In 40 years, the Iraq War will have cost "quadrillions". The actual cost was in the several hundreds of billions. It never reached a trillion.

I claim no special expertise on this matter, but ...

The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war. But today, as the United States ends combat in...

www.hks.harvard.edu

The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond

Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war. But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.
Citation
Stiglitz, Joseph E., and Linda J. Bilmes. "The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond." Washington Post, September 5, 2010.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Laureate. Are you?

I'm talking US Budget. The actual broader look at it could be notably larger, but as far as appropriations, it was probably $500 to $750 billion.

 

[Gospel]

A friend posed a philosophical conundrum. A guy rapes your mom. Holds up four babies and threatens to kill them if you retaliate. Its not your babies. Why wouldn't you retaliate? How are you guilty if the babies get hurt?

Because real strength isn’t shown in how much pain you can dish out, it’s in how much you can endure without becoming the thing you hate. Those babies may not be mine, but if I treat them like they are, even when it costs me justice or vengeance, that’s exactly what sets me apart from the one who raped my wife and hid behind children. I know you won't like that answer, but I live that answer everyday. Besides, I'm persistent, so eventually I'll catch up to that asshole when the children aren't around.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A friend posed a philosophical conundrum. A guy rapes your mom. Holds up four babies and threatens to kill them if you retaliate. Its not your babies. Why wouldn't you retaliate? How are you guilty if the babies get hurt?

Because real strength isn’t shown in how much pain you can dish out, it’s in how much you can endure without becoming the thing you hate. Those babies may not be mine, but if I treat them like they are, even when it costs me justice or vengeance, that’s exactly what sets me apart from the one who raped my wife and hid behind children. I know you won't like that answer, but I live that answer everyday. Besides, I'm persistent, so eventually I'll catch up to that asshole when the children aren't around.

You are correct that it doesn’t align with my values. You sound like a coward. Cowards don’t get respect and get walked all over. Its better to have some backbone. Its better for everyone. If evil people know there's people willing to fight for what is right, I think the world will be a safer place

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was pleased when Trump pulled away from the Ukraine conflict, I'm not pleased as he seems committed to conflict in the Mid-East.

I'm never pleased when the US President does something at the behest of Putin. Trump appeased Putin because of personal interest, that is bad.

One of them is Taiwan, which is on a bit of a back-burner right now.

Taiwan is tough because China can't afford to destroy Taiwan to take it over.

The worst of them is the Middle East, because it has the potential to pull even more players into it than the other conflicts. It could turn into a much wider war of the West versus the Mid-East. Even though Russia is part of the West (in a retarded step-sibling sort-of way) I can see Russia backing Iran. I can also see China backing Iran. This could get really messy really fast. On one side there is: USA, NATO, Israel. On the other side there is: Iran, Russia, China, much of the Muslim world. There is no good outcome here.

Sure there is. Israel and Iran stop the excess attacks and go back to the ridiculous status quo of the last couple of decades. They are both going to run out of missiles unless someone supplies them with more. Meanwhile Trump is just being Trump with his bravado and over the top hyperbole. The "ultimate ultimatum"? FFS!

 

[ZiprHead]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

 

[ZiprHead]

"carrying pilgrims". Big yellow flag right there, I was already expecting deception when I played the video.

"I was already expecting deception when I played the video." Can't much get a stronger admission of prejudice. And the word pilgrim simply means a person who journeys to a sacred place for religious reasons. More prejudice.

Reading. Try it sometime!

I read it and responded directly to what you said. Why would you question my reading ability?

I pointed out why I expected an issue: "carrying pilgrims". Very unlikely and thus a strong suggestion it was a setup. When they go out of their way to portray something as innocent figure it probably is not.

Doing something like putting that bus there is a standard ambush technique, clipping the corner of the bus instead of allowing it to stop them and bunch them up is pretty standard in hostile territory. US forces would have done the same thing in Iraq.

There was another car parked directly in front of the bus. The bus was going nowhere.

Assuming every car on the road is a possible attack so that gives the IDF the right to destroy private property. Yup, that's hostile territory alright. Direct hostility to West Bank residents. And people wonder why the Israelis are hated so much.

As I said, we would have done the same thing in Iraq.

Those people were suspected of being deadly terrorists ready to spring their trap so we'll just damage their vehicle and let them go on their merry way. No investigation. No search for weapons. Do you realize how daft that sounds???

As for Iraq, I declare your statement total bullshit. Here is the United States forces Rules Of Engagement:

[FONT=geneva,arial] Appendix E: Rules of Engagement for U.S. Military Forces in Iraq Issued by U.S. Central Command Combined Forces Land Component Commander A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U.S. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq. CFLCC ROE CARD On order, enemy military and paramilitary forces are declared hostile and may be attacked subject to the following instructions: a) Positive identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact your next higher commander for decision b) Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds. c) Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces, and designated persons or property under your control: Civilians Hospitals, mosques, national monuments, and any other historical and cultural sites. d) Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. Minimize collateral damage. e) Do not target enemy infrastructure (public works, commercial communication facilities, dams), Lines of Communication (roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, railways) and Economic Objects (commercial storage facilities, pipelines) unless necessary for self-defense or if ordered by your commander. If you must fire on these objects to engage a hostile force, disable and disrupt but avoid destruction of these objects, if possible. The use of force, including deadly force, is authorized to protect the following: Yourself, your unit, and friendly forces Enemy Prisoners of War Civilians from crimes that are likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, such as murder or rape Designated civilians and/or property, such as personnel of the Red Cross/Crescent, UN, and US/UN supported organizations 3. Treat all civilians and their property with respect and dignity. Do not seize civilian property, including vehicles, unless you have the permission of a company level commander and you give a receipt to the property’s owner. Detain civilians if they interfere with mission accomplishment or if required for self-defense. CENTCOM General Order No. 1A remains in effect. Looting and the taking of war trophies are prohibited. REMEMBER Attack enemy forces and military targets. Spare civilians and civilian property, if possible. Conduct yourself with dignity and honor. Comply with the Law of War. If you see a violation, report it. These ROE will remain in effect until your commander orders you to transition to post-hostilities ROE.

[/FONT]

 

[Gospel]

A friend posed a philosophical conundrum. A guy rapes your mom. Holds up four babies and threatens to kill them if you retaliate. Its not your babies. Why wouldn't you retaliate? How are you guilty if the babies get hurt?

Because real strength isn’t shown in how much pain you can dish out, it’s in how much you can endure without becoming the thing you hate. Those babies may not be mine, but if I treat them like they are, even when it costs me justice or vengeance, that’s exactly what sets me apart from the one who raped my wife and hid behind children. I know you won't like that answer, but I live that answer everyday. Besides, I'm persistent, so eventually I'll catch up to that asshole when the children aren't around.

You are correct that it doesn’t align with my values. You sound like a coward. Cowards don’t get respect and get walked all over. Its better to have some backbone. Its better for everyone. If evil people know there's people willing to fight for what is right, I think the world will be a safer place

If your idea of a “backbone” is killing babies just to prove you won’t be walked on you’re just another piece of shit hiding cruelty behind fake courage. Just like Hamas.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

 

[Gospel]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

Won't happen. I'll hand you all hammers and put my balls on the table if it does.

Public service announcement: I’m no longer a Mod or Admin, so if you can’t handle my opinion, feel free to use the ignore button. That’s a lot more respectable than pulling an opinion out of your ass and claiming it's mine.

 

[TomC]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

Like Loren, I see Israeli defense against a violent neighbor remarkably measured and precise.

Maybe y'all could produce an example of another similar situation that someone handled better? Be sure and stick to examples where the aggressors used human shields tactics.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

Like Loren, I see Israeli defense against a violent neighbor remarkably measured and precise.

Maybe y'all could produce an example of another similar situation that someone handled better? Be sure and stick to examples where the aggressors used human shields tactics.
Tom

Nope. It was Loren's argument. It's his responsibility to back it up. And I already posted the United States Rules Of Engagement in Iraq.

Your white knighting for him is noted.

 

[laughing dog]

TomC:

Loren made an unsubstantiated claim of fact. It is up to him or someone else to produce the evidence when questioned. Instead of shifting the goalposts or blowing smoke, why not produce the evidence?

 

[Gospel]

Like Loren, I see Israeli defense against a violent neighbor remarkably measured and precise.

This clearly holds true so far in the case of the strike on Iran (legal questions aside). Gaza, however, is still up for debate.

 

[TomC]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

Like Loren, I see Israeli defense against a violent neighbor remarkably measured and precise.

Maybe y'all could produce an example of another similar situation that someone handled better? Be sure and stick to examples where the aggressors used human shields tactics.
Tom

Nope. It was Loren's argument. It's his responsibility to back it up. And I already posted the United States Rules Of Engagement in Iraq.

Your white knighting for him is noted.

Looks entirely like a dodge on your part.
There're zillions of military conflicts in history.
Let's take the US invasion of Japan in 1945. Was that more measured and precise than Israel's response to the Gazan attacks?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

With links to relevant evidence.

Like Loren, I see Israeli defense against a violent neighbor remarkably measured and precise.

Maybe y'all could produce an example of another similar situation that someone handled better? Be sure and stick to examples where the aggressors used human shields tactics.
Tom

Nope. It was Loren's argument. It's his responsibility to back it up. And I already posted the United States Rules Of Engagement in Iraq.

Your white knighting for him is noted.

Looks entirely like a dodge on your part.
There're zillions of military conflicts in history.
Let's take the US invasion of Japan in 1945. Was that more measured and precise than Israel's response to the Gazan attacks?
Tom

Keep blowing smoke. Even if it wasn’t, how would that be relevant?

 

[pood]

The U.S. didn’t “invade” Japan in World War II. It ended the war via dropping two atom bombs — two huge war crimes.

 

[Gospel]

It's not fair, we all know the US has a history of sucking at restraint. Use another example.