quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
And why, why, why why does Hamas continue to get a free pass for hiding terrorism behind civilian shields?

Explain to me how they are getting a free pass. Seems like the IDF is doing everything possible to kill them all. Plus, 35,000 civilians have been killed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

The aide by the French during the American Revolution is a poor comparison. The French could have done whatever they wanted. They acted entirely out of self-interest to reduce England.

We could have stopped lend lease to the Soviets. We were under no obligation to assists them. Germany declared war on the US. Germany was prioritized for defeat at a very high cost. We did not have to support, or help the Soviets. We decided to because the goal to beat the Germans was determined superior. That does not require us to support Netanyahu today.

We should have taken a harder stance against the Soviets during and immediately after WWII.

They could have conditioned aide. They could have done nothing. It was entire up to the French when and how it provide aide if any. That included conditioning side if they desired. The French did us no favors. They worked to their goals and national self interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

We're not at war with Islamic Terrorism?
Do the Islamic Terrorists know that?

And just as with our War on Terror America had to unconditionally support the Soviets in WW2.

And I think your answer is yes, it would have hurt the cause and effort to have France put conditions on their support of us during our Revolution as our conditions today hurt Israel. That France supported us in our opposition to Britain was never a question.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

The aide by the French during the American Revolution is a poor comparison. The French could have done whatever they wanted. They acted entirely out of self-interest to reduce England.

We could have stopped lend lease to the Soviets. We were under no obligation to assists them. Germany declared war on the US. Germany was prioritized for defeat at a very high cost. We did not have to support, or help the Soviets. We decided to because the goal to beat the Germans was determined superior. That does not require us to support Netanyahu today.

We should have taken a harder stance against the Soviets during and immediately after WWII.

They could have conditioned aide. They could have done nothing. It was entire up to the French when and how it provide aide if any. That included conditioning side if they desired. The French did us no favors. They worked to their goals and national self interest.

Alfalfa, I can't wait for you to get past puberty.

I find it just odd that you can be so wrong on so many current events and not have the intelligence to correct your course.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

We're not at war with Islamic Terrorism?
Do the Islamic Terrorists know that?

And just as with our War on Terror America had to unconditionally support the Soviets in WW2.

And I think your answer is yes, it would have hurt the cause and effort to have France put conditions on their support of us during our Revolution as our conditions today hurt Israel. That France supported us in our opposition to Britain was never a question.

Well, there had been a declaration of war with the Axis powers.

I think we were pretty happy to send everything possible to the Soviets and let them fight the Germans. Which is what happened. Good policy.

Not sure what it has to do with supporting Israel when they are killing innocent civilians in a regional conflict that has nothing to do with our national interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t buy your position that the majority of the Israeli population disagrees with Netanyahu’s leadership.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/...-are-turning-on-him/


https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793846


https://www.reuters.com/world/...aza-vote-2024-03-26/


Bibi is not very popular at home...and for good reason.

Lane,
If you need help figuring out how to use Google, I'm here for you

Then why is N in office? good question He wasn't duly elected? He was

My beef here has nothing to do with my comprehension of Civics as our friend Alfalfa thinks, but rather using support during a war to effect regime change. Legal or not it blows my mind that after all this time and all the lessons we've been given there's any even a juvenile in the room that thinks they know better from half a world away and especially half way through a war like this. If you read the links I posted you would see that it is not me, but the Israelis that seem to want a new leader. Many of them want the hostages back more than they want to continue the war with Hamas. Seems like those folks would know better than I, seeing how I'm half a world away.

If N needs to go it should only be decided by Israel and if America should change funding and support for Israel it certainly should not be decided spur of the moment and in the middle of a conflict.

I think if you look at the map you posted and your earlier comments about the Israelis being "God's people" then it is easy to see where we differ. I do not see this as a religious issue, I'm more of the "We are all God's people" type myself. I want to see a political solution that leaves maps from two millennium ago out of the equation and takes into account the needs of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. This has been a non-stop conflict since 1948, I want to see my tax dollars go somewhere else and both sides make tough compromises in order to settle the issue. Not likely I know, but a boy can still dream.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I don’t buy your position that the majority of the Israeli population disagrees with Netanyahu’s leadership.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/...-are-turning-on-him/


https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793846


https://www.reuters.com/world/...aza-vote-2024-03-26/


Bibi is not very popular at home...and for good reason.

Lane,
If you need help figuring out how to use Google, I'm here for you

Then why is N in office? good question He wasn't duly elected? He was

My beef here has nothing to do with my comprehension of Civics as our friend Alfalfa thinks, but rather using support during a war to effect regime change. Legal or not it blows my mind that after all this time and all the lessons we've been given there's any even a juvenile in the room that thinks they know better from half a world away and especially half way through a war like this. If you read the links I posted you would see that it is not me, but the Israelis that seem to want a new leader. Many of them want the hostages back more than they want to continue the war with Hamas. Seems like those folks would know better than I, seeing how I'm half a world away.

If N needs to go it should only be decided by Israel and if America should change funding and support for Israel it certainly should not be decided spur of the moment and in the middle of a conflict.

I think if you look at the map you posted and your earlier comments about the Israelis being "God's people" then it is easy to see where we differ. I do not see this as a religious issue, I'm more of the "We are all God's people" type myself. I want to see a political solution that leaves maps from two millennium ago out of the equation and takes into account the needs of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. This has been a non-stop conflict since 1948, I want to see my tax dollars go somewhere else and both sides make tough compromises in order to settle the issue. Not likely I know, but a boy can still dream.

I agree with every word you said.

I post the maps and my quote "Gods People" as opposition to the "River to the Sea" folks. The Israelis are no more invaders of Palestine than the Moabites or Palestinians. The map shows Gaza independent of Israel in King David's time.

You and I are funding these M.E. wars and like you I want to stop. Where I differ in theory from some here is that regardless whose "ruling" at the moment, I as America would advise at strategically appropriate times course corrections in long term foreign policy, not bait and switch a week after D day.

As for why N is in office and the Press opinion, ill remind you our Press guaranteed a Clinton victory in 2016.

Those here and throughout the rest of our Western world that continue to force our values and methods on Eastern societies will continue to be wrong and defeated.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's 3,500 dumb bombs, isn't it? The ones the Israelis have been carpet-bombing civilians with in Gaza. We're still supplying them with jets, armor, ammo, anti-craft, intelligence, etc etc etc.

I'm pro-Israeli but if we're going to finance their existence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we ought to have some say-so in regard to how they conduct themselves in relation to civilian deaths.

Ok, so seriously, I try to think about what I write once in a while.

So in WW2 the Soviets were sort of mean right? No to nice to the Germans in their counterattack of Stalin's invasion of Russia right?

So since the Soviets were being mean we should have stopped supporting them in their war efforts against The Axis? Say about the 1st of June 1944 we decide we're upset and our feelings are hurt about how the counter attacking Russians are treating the Germans and shut off the "Lend for Lease"?

France chipped in during our Revolution and we thank them very much. You and I would have been kinda sore if King Louie would have attached stipulations after they chipped in like getting rid of General Washington or John Adams wouldn't we? Say France agrees to send their navy but they have some pretty firm ideas about our founding documents.

It's just obvious the time for Regime Change as dictated by us is never and the time for changing tactics and who decides those changes in tactics ain't today.

Scott....we were at war with the Germans.

And French assistance in the Revolutionary War was totally at the discretion of the French.

We're not at war with Islamic Terrorism?
Do the Islamic Terrorists know that?

And just as with our War on Terror America had to unconditionally support the Soviets in WW2.

And I think your answer is yes, it would have hurt the cause and effort to have France put conditions on their support of us during our Revolution as our conditions today hurt Israel. That France supported us in our opposition to Britain was never a question.

Well, there had been a declaration of war with the Axis powers.

I think we were pretty happy to send everything possible to the Soviets and let them fight the Germans. Which is what happened. Good policy.

Not sure what it has to do with supporting Israel when they are killing innocent civilians in a regional conflict that has nothing to do with our national interest.

Of course we were happy to supply Russia, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". And Russia as well of the rest of the Allies killed millions of civilian enemy Axis.

And Man, if defeating Islamic Terrorism isn't a Western and American priority I'm not sure what to think about our foreign entanglements over the last 30 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
We're not at war with Islamic Terrorism?

no, lawyer, we are not officially "at war". congress hasn't declared since 1942

https://www.senate.gov/about/p...g%20World%20War%20II.

I think Biden and his admin are correct.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
We're not at war with Islamic Terrorism?

no, lawyer, we are not officially "at war". congress hasn't declared since 1942

https://www.senate.gov/about/p...g%20World%20War%20II.

With the U.S. having withdrawn from Iran and Iraq and not putting troops in Israel, we are not at war in the Middle East.

We are trying, at least the Administration is, trying to support Israel’s right to self-determination, maintain a two state plan for long term security for Israel, and prevent Middle Wast nation state from abandoning recognition of Israel to the detriment of Iran.

We also have an obligation to the international treaties concerning conducting war/combat.

I never supported the whole “take the gloves off,” torture is okay mindset that came up during the Bush years.

We can use overwhelming force wo violation of your principles.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


We are trying, at least the Administration is, trying to support Israel’s right to self-determination, maintain a two state plan for long term security for Israel, and prevent Middle Wast nation state from abandoning recognition of Israel to the detriment of Iran.
.

Can you imagine how difficult it is for either party to manage that? They are a country in a place where they are not wanted. and its not an anti arab thing for me, my econd best customer is an arab living in SF and i think of him as a friend. AS far as the taking the gloves off goes, 9/11 was a watershed moment.I like to think im a pretty measured guy but i dont care who got waterboarded to find the right guys to kill.

Well, we still have a use of force resolution around, and Biden has dropped some bombs on folks.

I think we still are at war with terrorism.

If you want to debate use of force on nonstate actors that’s a different issue.

We (the US) are not perfect. We make mistakes. But we are a lot more willing to admit to mistakes and try and remedy issues than any other nation which has been in a similar position of relative power.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


We are trying, at least the Administration is, trying to support Israel’s right to self-determination, maintain a two state plan for long term security for Israel, and prevent Middle Wast nation state from abandoning recognition of Israel to the detriment of Iran.
.

Can you imagine how difficult it is for either party to manage that? They are a country in a place where they are not wanted. and its not an anti arab thing for me, my econd best customer is an arab living in SF and i think of him as a friend. AS far as the taking the gloves off goes, 9/11 was a watershed moment.I like to think im a pretty measured guy but i dont care who got waterboarded to find the right guys to kill.

Except it got us relatively nothing. At the expose of our principles. I could post various Senate reports, National Institute of Health, Law Review Articles and the below:

https://pfiffner.gmu.edu/wp-co...Efficacy_Ch-6_ET.pdf

Oh well, I’ll give one law review article.

https://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/83/83_1_Bell.pdf

Of course, these will be rejected because of the all encompassing, “ I just know it worked.”


The Convention Against Torture and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The United States is a party) admits of no exceptions, even public emergency.

It also gave us a Supreme Court case applying due process to those detained in Guantanamo Bay.

No, the program was morally repugnant, ineffective, damaged our national standing, and damaged our war goals in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gave Saeed a legitimate claim of our hypocrisy. He is not the only non-radical Islamic practitioner to share this view. The bad outweighed the good.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


We are trying, at least the Administration is, trying to support Israel’s right to self-determination, maintain a two state plan for long term security for Israel, and prevent Middle Wast nation state from abandoning recognition of Israel to the detriment of Iran.
.

Can you imagine how difficult it is for either party to manage that? They are a country in a place where they are not wanted. and its not an anti arab thing for me, my econd best customer is an arab living in SF and i think of him as a friend. AS far as the taking the gloves off goes, 9/11 was a watershed moment.I like to think im a pretty measured guy but i dont care who got waterboarded to find the right guys to kill.

Except it got us relatively nothing. At the expose of our principles. I could post various Senate reports, National Institute of Health, Law Review Articles and the below:

https://pfiffner.gmu.edu/wp-co...Efficacy_Ch-6_ET.pdf

Oh well, I’ll give one law review article.

https://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/83/83_1_Bell.pdf

Of course, these will be rejected because of the all encompassing, “ I just know it worked.”


The Convention Against Torture and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The United States is a party) admits of no exceptions, even public emergency.

It also gave us a Supreme Court case applying due process to those detained in Guantanamo Bay.

No, the program was morally repugnant, ineffective, damaged our national standing, and damaged our war goals in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gave Saeed a legitimate claim of our hypocrisy. He is not the only non-radical Islamic practitioner to share this view. The bad outweighed the good.

And look where we got! The Taliban reigns supreme in Afghanistan 2024.

What does the Taliban have in store for us next? Do we have a say or have our western sensibilities corralled us into being lambs for the slaughter?

Heym, I don't have it in me to gloat over your failures. When your failed foreign policy comes home to roost and you are the victim of terrorism or yours are sacrificed in the effort to introduce democracy to the Caliphate I will mourn, I will be sorry and feel guilty I couldn't or didn't do something.

I hope in another thirty or forty years you get it, you wise up, grow up and understand that our enemies thrive on your civility and sensibilities.

Scott,
Take a step back for a moment. Think about it. I'm not saying our adversaries play by the rules, they do not, but we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We do not intentionally target civilians, we do not shoot surrendering troops, we do not torture our enemies. The reasons are obvious if you study history at all.

As to Afghanistan, most of our country felt 20 years was long enough. We beat them on the battlefield but could not stop the continued insurgency or win enough of the population over to our viewpoint. How many more years of "Nation Building" do you feel that we should have provided?

quote:

And look where we got! The Taliban reigns supreme in Afghanistan 2024.

I hope in another thirty or forty years you get it, you wise up, grow up and understand that our enemies thrive on your civility and sensibilities.

Scott, once or twice you suggested that I chill - lighten up. So, now I return the favor.

The Viet Cong now reign in S. Vietnam too.

Removing Sadam and Gaddafi, etc., opened doors we didn't anticipate. There's plenty of foreign policy to second guess given subsequent events.

"our enemies thrive on your civility and sensibilities."

You mean like the GOPer stalling support for Ukraine? Like Biden stalling on Israel's bombs?

Deep DooDoo.

Worrying about and second-guessing, with hindsight, is one thing. IMO, what we should be worrying about is what's happening now and the trajectory of that in 30 - 40 years. Neither Putin nor Bibi seem to have a de-escalation plan.

Scott, I've watched a few short videos of interviews with this woman.

Linked is the long version but I started it at the chapter about Ukraine. Towards the end of this section (a few minutes) she talks about the difference comparing to Afghanistan, for example.

I think this woman knows what she is talking about.

https://youtube.com/shorts/O0q...?si=nGGSVTXdexAOpcnC

Sarah C. M. Paine - WW2, Taiwan, Ukraine, & Maritime vs Continental Powers

Sarah Paine, Professor of History and Strategy at the Naval War College.

https://youtu.be/oEahPLq1qBU?si=A8lI7fMoICWPZPed

A Post-Western Global Order? | Sarah Paine (Naval War College)

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Should Biden make public the recording of the "perfect phone call" where trump attempted to extort Zelensky into digging up dirt on Biden?

I say hey trump if you're such a good choice you shouldn't need to resort to that kind of shit.

Interestingly the the "perfect" phone call was made public. The digging dirt began when the video of Biden bragging about using a billion taxpayer dollars to extort Ukraine into firing a prosecutor was aired on TV. Guess you missed it. Odd Ukraine isn't and has never been an ally but Israel has been an ally for many years.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Scott, I've watched a few short videos of interviews with this woman.

Linked is the long version but I started it at the chapter about Ukraine. Towards the end of this section (a few minutes) she talks about the difference comparing to Afghanistan, for example.

I think this woman knows what she is talking about.

https://youtube.com/shorts/O0q...?si=nGGSVTXdexAOpcnC

Sarah C. M. Paine - WW2, Taiwan, Ukraine, & Maritime vs Continental Powers

Sarah Paine, Professor of History and Strategy at the Naval War College.

https://youtu.be/oEahPLq1qBU?si=A8lI7fMoICWPZPed

A Post-Western Global Order? | Sarah Paine (Naval War College)

Fascism has come to America. Biden is Hitler's stand in. He sure doesn't represent most Americans but the border hoppers sure love him.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

And look where we got! The Taliban reigns supreme in Afghanistan 2024.

in the effort to introduce democracy to the Caliphate

Here's an explanation, maybe sufficient.

Why America Failed In Afghanistan | Sarah Paine

https://youtu.be/xkxy5zo2kJ8?si=cPfVUyw6uBRLt7Lt

Bonus:

https://youtu.be/qSTuahfAZf0?si=vNL__TJxVN3IDQic

How Much Will China Risk for Taiwan? – Sarah Paine

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
And why, why, why why does Hamas continue to get a free pass for hiding terrorism behind civilian shields?

Explain to me how they are getting a free pass. Seems like the IDF is doing everything possible to kill them all. Plus, 35,000 civilians have been killed.

No 35,000 civilians have not been killed. Why not blame Hamas who orchestrated the Oct. 7 attack and their propensity for using civilians, women and children as human shields to garner sympathy?

quote:

Redhog
new member

I think that probably you won't get (troll) many herein to argue with you. I for one won't.

The presentation of deeply held opinion as factual is not really a good starting place for argument or discussion. You can't be corrected.

So, carry on, for whatever it's worth to you. It's worthless to me.

Does anyone here think we follow the No Torture rule?
No-one does, anywhere.
I had level C SEER training. The focus is on resistance. You dont go out on spec-ops without showing you wont give up the plan.
You are beaten, put in a box you can neither stand or stretch in. You sit in your own piss and shit with a half cup of water a day. Add waterboarding to the list. You can always be a toe-tapper. If waterboarding is to much, a person can tap their toes together to quit ....
if they bother to recognize it. They have a medic on standby if they drown you, the gov likely has a couple hundred thousand into you in training by then, so they dont want you to die.
Torture is alive and well in the world, just all part of the game people play.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

The presentation of deeply held opinion as factual is not really a good starting place for argument or discussion. You can't be corrected.
.

dude, wow .. try a mirror
https://youtu.be/D-NHPk9eNSI?t=1448

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

The presentation of deeply held opinion as factual is not really a good starting place for argument or discussion. You can't be corrected.
.

dude, wow .. try a mirror
https://youtu.be/D-NHPk9eNSI?t=1448

Ok I did consider your post and decided it's false equivalence.

It's a fact that I considered it and deciding it's a false equivalence is an opinion.

Weird - huh.

Do I need to spell it out like that every time for you?

In fact, your insinuation is an opinion stated as a fact.

I can handle being corrected or lectured just fine. (fact or opinion?) Can you?

A good example is in the Kristi Noem thread where we discussed our experiences (facts) and opinions re dogs. I didn't make it personal, stated my experiences and current opinions and others did too. All is good.

President Biden sends weapons.

https://apple.news/AQJ7VJha8TCWvejas12ntkQ

I was really hoping the Administration would take the not going to send weapons to be used in violation of international law the U.S. is subject to approach. I wanted the Supreme Court opinion on the issue. This is probably for the best.

Not for nothing, treaties have the force of an Act of Congress signed into law by the President when ratified by the Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Scott,
Take a step back for a moment. Think about it. I'm not saying our adversaries play by the rules, they do not, but we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We do not intentionally target civilians, we do not shoot surrendering troops, we do not torture our enemies. The reasons are obvious if you study history at all.

As to Afghanistan, most of our country felt 20 years was long enough. We beat them on the battlefield but could not stop the continued insurgency or win enough of the population over to our viewpoint. How many more years of "Nation Building" do you feel that we should have provided?

You and M.E. are right of course and I need to lighten up. Take a chill pill.

We actually have intentionally targeted civilians, see the fire bombing of Japan and Germany as well as Sherman's March to the Sea.

I'm very concerned that we/ The West restrain ourselves while The Caliphate does not. Case in point, there would be no civilian casualties in Gaza if Hamas were not using civilians as their shield. If Hamas came out from the kindergarten classrooms and the tunnels beneath hospitals there'd be no popular western umbrage.

I'm very bothered because I have an offspring that soon will be draftable and most all my friends have offspring that are fighting age now. How am I supposed to "be there", how am I supposed to support a friend who sacrificed their child in a Vietnam or Somalia or Afghanistan type war? "Fought the Good Fight!" ?
Nobody's that stupid.

I've read that it's thought Great Britain and France gave generations of their best as sacrifice to the two World Wars and their future was stunted because. That bothers me.

But! I'll lighten up a bit for a while I hope.

Scott,
I never suggested that you lighten up(though it might not be a bad idea ).

Yes we have targeted civilians in the past, that is exactly the reason we no longer do. Note that public opinion world wide strongly frowns upon that behavior. We are stronger with our allies than without them. In order to maintain or international alliances we have altered our rules for engagement. Overall not a bad thing in my mind.

Insurgents intermingle with civilian populations in irregular warfare, it has been that way since at least Vietnam. Of course they are not going to stand on a battlefield, they do not have a army, they fight dirty because the must. Guerilla warfare is what they engage in and we have limited options because we do not want to cause mass civilian casualties. This has been the official US position for pretty much my whole life.

We currently do not draft anyone, let alone females. I think your daughter is safe from that threat, though she certainly could join our armed services by free will.

Humor me would you? Answer my question. How many more years of "Nation Building" should we have provided Afghanistan? I felt we were there far too long.

When women gained access to combat roles, they arguably became eligible to be selected for service.

In 2022, a Senate Subcommittee advanced a bill making women register mandatory.

https://www.military.com/daily...efense-bill.html?amp

Young men still have to register.

A prohibition on women from registering for selective service feels like a violation of due process based on gender.

However, no woman appears wanting to sue over it.

His concern is real given everyone pushed until women became able to be placed in combat roles.

Well, yes but we do not have a draft. Our armed forces are all volunteer. Not that a draft could not be re-instated, it could but I personally see that as a very remote possibility and a draft including women to be a much more remote possibility.

I'm not discounting Scott's concerns, I just do not think a situation where his daughter would be drafted is in any way likely to happen.

If we need one, we will have one.

It is a legislative matter. No Court has declared the draft unconstitutional.

As a matter of policy, Congress has not used that hammer.

It sets in the tool box. All they have to do is reach for it.

True, but as much as they value their jobs, I think that tool stays in the tool box for the foreseeable future.

Re-instating the draft would be very, very unpopular and our elected representatives are fully aware of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
True, but as much as they value their jobs, I think that tool stays in the tool box for the foreseeable future.

Re-instating the draft would be very, very unpopular and our elected representatives are fully aware of that.

No more unpopular than it was during the Civil War.

Never confuse what one chooses not to do with what one cannot do.

We dropped a nuclear bomb w a possibility it would set the atmosphere on fire.

All it takes is the correct situation.

War w China or Russia.

All this to say, King’s concern is legitimate.

When people began the push for combat roles, I do not think they thought about the consequences.

You may well be correct. I still feel the smart money is on no women being drafted into service in my lifetime.

I have been wrong before....

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Scott,
I never suggested that you lighten up(though it might not be a bad idea ).

Yes we have targeted civilians in the past, that is exactly the reason we no longer do. Note that public opinion world wide strongly frowns upon that behavior. We are stronger with our allies than without them. In order to maintain or international alliances we have altered our rules for engagement. Overall not a bad thing in my mind.

Insurgents intermingle with civilian populations in irregular warfare, it has been that way since at least Vietnam. Of course they are not going to stand on a battlefield, they do not have a army, they fight dirty because the must. Guerilla warfare is what they engage in and we have limited options because we do not want to cause mass civilian casualties. This has been the official US position for pretty much my whole life.

We currently do not draft anyone, let alone females. I think your daughter is safe from that threat, though she certainly could join our armed services by free will.

Humor me would you? Answer my question. How many more years of "Nation Building" should we have provided Afghanistan? I felt we were there far too long.

And we agree again.
In hindsight and having learned from our mistakes moving forward I believe Afghanistan should have been solved in "W"'s first term. As Commander in Chief I would order the conquest of Afghanistan, the destruction of the Taliban, hand off governing authority to regional powers like Pakistan and Iran, maybe UN and leave with the warning that I'll come back if you make me.

I'd do the same in Haiti. On the beach on this day, secure the capitol on this day, end of hostilities on this day, turned over to The Dominican Republic or UN on this day.
Again, "Don't make me come back here.".

No doubt everyone who read that will consider it simple and ignorant, but I think I can plainly see the failure in passive aggressively handing it off to the next administration having made no real progress for two decades. The conquest of Western Europe by the Allies took one year.

How about another way, as POTUS simply start what you finish. If your going to invade Afghanistan or Haiti and then give it back to the criminals, do it in your first term. Insure that no matter what happens in the next election you complete your task. If I were president I'd have that retirement farm, (Monticello or Mt Vernon idea,) and if after 4 years you want me gone I'd say adios! And best feet for the barn.

Nation building is a fools errand as we've demonstrated. Afghanistan should have been torn apart, reduced to rubble and left for the regional scavengers to pick at.

I actual do not agree with most of what King has written.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
You may well be correct. I still feel the smart money is on no women being drafted into service in my lifetime.

I have been wrong before....

Ultimately, the smart money is on no one getting drafted as a war that would see the draft being used is less likely than peace from my point of view. Others will disagree. I cannot tell them they are wrong.

I mostly consider the draft a non issue militarily at this point.

Instituting a draft would require some sort of admission that we are facing an existential threat as a nation.

Existential threats to us in this age of nuclear weapons are going to be resolved quickly with extreme violence before we could draft and train troops, and then they would be targeted by strategic weapons.

Until we can defeat WMD’s or more precisely, their delivery, numbers of troops have little to do with a military existential threat.

Essentially we haven’t needed a draft since 1955, once the USSR developed enough strategic weapons for MAD to come in to play.