Israel = the Good Guys in the Middle East; their neighboring states are unsavory and un-trustworthy

[Horn6721]

I keep reading how horrible Israel is to cut off services so Hamas can't continue to murder Israelis. Some call what Israel did inhumane . Not sure how trying to protect your people from being raped beheaded and burned is "inhumane"
Israel has been providing services to the enemy who wants to kill all Jews.. for 20 years. Why?
According to public records The international community has sent billions and billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip in recent years to provide relief to the more than 2 million Palestinians living in the isolated, Hamas-ruled territory. this link is from 2021 which means more billions more were sent to Gaza
A look at the billions of dollars in foreign aid to Gaza

Billions, they could have developed their own electrical grid, water supply, agri farms to provide food etc.
What happened to the Billions and billions including from USA taxpayers?
Hamas used it to build the system of tunnels beneath the civilian hospitals schools businesses etc, To take the water pipes bringing water to Palis and making rockets. etc etc etc
BUT let's call on Israel to "cease fire" . Bull Hockey.

 

[Monahorns]

Really interesting letter from a young Palestinian.

 

[Horn6721]

Interesting Mona
I quickly read it so maybe I missed it
Did that young Pali female address what Hamas did and is doing to them?

 

[nashhorn]

Very revealing. She addresses so many issues we all realize to be true. Why, as she points out, haven’t they done more to improve their conditions while having the chance? So much money put into that region with dismal results. Now it’s tragedy for all sides.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Interesting Mona
I quickly read it so maybe I missed it
Did that young Pali female address what Hamas did and is doing to them?

Yes. Take some time to read it thoroughly.

 

[Horn6721]

I first quickly read it on my phone. After reading it on laptop I see she mentions how much her dad hates Hamas and how Hamas does not care for the Palis .
It is unfortunate no one in the Arab/ Muslim world will take Palestinians in.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Every dollar and resource they send over there is coming out our pockets through inflation. If you are against inflation, you should be against this. It is making us all poorer

That could be said of every dollar the US spends. Rein in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, DoD, public education, etc. (meaning what we really spend money on), and then I'll start sweating the chump change we send to Israel.

That is what is happening en masse.

Really? The Nazis believed Jews were inherently inferior and corrupt, so they rounded up as many as they could regardless of their actions or role and intentionally murdered them for no strategic or military reason. You're accusing Israel of doing this to the Palestinians? Stopping Hamas has nothing to do with it. It's just about murdering Palestinians for shits and giggles. Am I correct?

Are you saying without that change the United States couldn't have existed? Without expansion and fighting Barbary Pirates? Were the Barbary Pirates an existential threat to the United States?

Lol. I'm saying that this idyllic world in which the US was a thriving isolationist republic that freely traded with the world is a myth or at most a very, very short-lived reality (less than 15 years). We were an expansionist power by the early 19th century. Jefferson wasn't an isolationist. Madison wasn't. Monroe sure as hell wasn't.

Were the Barbary pirates an existential threat? No, but they were screwing with our merchants, so we had to fight them. Again, this is an example of free trade having to rely on military power and at times military aggression.

Patton said we fought the wrong enemy.

He viewed the USSR as the worse enemy. Long term, he was right. That doesn't mean he was right about everything. I think he was overly favorable to the Nazis and hostile to Jews, and I think he was wrong to oppose the Nuremberg Trials.

I do have sympathy for the argument that we should have allied with the less ideological components of the Wehrmacht to overthrow Hitler and then defeat the USSR. Some of those guys (such as Rommel and Ludwig Beck) were decent and honorable men. (My granddad who was a WWII vet and Naval captain believed this.) I don't sympathize with those think we should have buddied up with guys like Hitler, Göring, Himmler, and Keitel for any purpose. Those guys were evil, dangerous, and dishonorable.

But of course, this is somewhat of a disingenuous point for you to make, because you would have opposed fighting either one. You would have let Stalin and Hitler basically do what they wanted until they were on our shores.

It should have been obvious to all that the USSR had global ambitions, while the Nazis had regional ambitions.

The Nazis' territorial expansion ambitions were regional, but their influence-seeking was global. Furthermore, that region was big. It extended from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. There's no question that had the Greater German Reich become a reality we would have clashed with it, but it likely would have had a stronger economy and more advanced military than the USSR did.

 

[Chop]

this is an example of free trade having to rely on military power and at times military aggression.

It's always been that way. The great merchant powers (Rome, Venice, Genoa, England, Netherlands, USA, etc.) have always required a good navy.

 

[Chop]

The Nazis' territorial expansion ambitions were regional, but their influence-seeking was global. Furthermore, that region was big. It extended from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. There's no question that had the Greater German Reich become a reality we would have clashed with it, but it likely would have had a stronger economy and more advanced military than the USSR did.

And the Germans' technology and speed of improving their technology was by far the world's best. The world's top rocket scientists, jet engine scientists, aerospace engineers, etc. started out as Germans before they became Americans (and some became Russians against their will). Hence, Germany posed the greater mid-term and long-term threat to the US and the entire World. The USSR just had this enormous ground army with nearly unlimited manpower and cheap rocket artillery. And they had one really good general who knew how to use them effectively.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And the Germans' technology and speed of improving their technology was by far the world's best. The world's top rocket scientists, jet engine scientists, aerospace engineers, etc. started out as Germans before they became Americans (and some became Russians against their will). Hence, Germany posed the greater mid-term and long-term threat to the US and the entire World. The USSR just had this enormous ground army with nearly unlimited manpower and cheap rocket artillery. And they had one really good general who knew how to use them effectively.

I generally concur, but what I suspect Monahorns would point out is that the USSR had a much more global ideological agenda. They embedded allies and sympathisers throughout the American government, media, and academia. Accordingly, they had the ability to greatly influence American public opinion and policy in ways the Nazis didn't. Military and economically, the Soviets lost the Cold War, but politically I think the argument can be made that they won. We have huge institutions shilling for their ideology long after the regime was gone. That's why though I view the Nazis as the more immediate threat, I think the Soviets were the bigger long term threat.

 

[Run Pincher]

I keep reading how horrible Israel is to cut off services so Hamas can't continue to murder Israelis. Some call what Israel did inhumane . Not sure how trying to protect your people from being raped beheaded and burned is "inhumane"
Israel has been providing services to the enemy who wants to kill all Jews.. for 20 years. Why?
According to public records The international community has sent billions and billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip in recent years to provide relief to the more than 2 million Palestinians living in the isolated, Hamas-ruled territory. this link is from 2021 which means more billions more were sent to Gaza
A look at the billions of dollars in foreign aid to Gaza

Billions, they could have developed their own electrical grid, water supply, agri farms to provide food etc.
What happened to the Billions and billions including from USA taxpayers?
Hamas used it to build the system of tunnels beneath the civilian hospitals schools businesses etc, To take the water pipes bringing water to Palis and making rockets. etc etc etc
BUT let's call on Israel to "cease fire" . Bull Hockey.

Sounds a little bit like Johnson's Great Society doesn't it? Since 1964 what has happened to the poor? The unwed birth rate is 10x what it was, the fatherless family rate is 10x what it was. The number incarcerated has quadrupled. The number addicted to drugs has quadrupled. And I'm sure a whole lot more negative stats if I spent the time digging them up.

What is it some will never understand you don't ever get people off the Welfare drug is they don't want to get off?

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's always been that way. The great merchant powers (Rome, Venice, Genoa, England, Netherlands, USA, etc.) have always required a good navy.

I've long understood that, but Monahorns has always envisioned a world in which free trade can thrive without any sprawling military power. To him, it should just be a world of benevolent nations and people kindly and respectfully buying and selling goods and services. Naive as hell, but that's his ideal world.

 

[Chop]

I've long understood that, but Monahorns has always envisioned a world in which free trade can thrive without any sprawling military power. To him, it should just be a world of benevolent nations and people kindly and respectfully buying and selling goods and services. Naive as hell, but that's his ideal world.

Economist: "ASSUME ... [some ridiculous assumption that does not, in any way, reflect the real world]..., then blah, blah, blah..."

 

[bystander]

I think without military power, you will be plundered. At least it was that way long ago. I think it's still necessary. Nationalization is an issue. Pirates. Imperialism. It's all there. If anyone thinks this is a civilized world that doesn't require a big stick to keep the trade from falling completely apart, then check Russia/Ukraine and Gaza.

 

[bystander]

Did y'all see this?

 

[Horn6721]

I am.gobsmacked
She is right.

 

[bystander]

I am.gobsmacked
She is right.

I was surprised myself. She also voted for the Iraq War Resolution and Obama ripped her for it in their primary debates. Is it possible she is rational in some ways, like foreign policy? It's not a local social issue.

 

[mchammer]

I think without military power, you will be plundered. At least it was that way long ago. I think it's still necessary. Nationalization is an issue. Pirates. Imperialism. It's all there. If anyone thinks this is a civilized world that doesn't require a big stick to keep the trade from falling completely apart, then check Russia/Ukraine and Gaza.

Look at China and their vassal states (Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc) before the Industrial Revolution. China’s strength tipped the balance in their favor on trade. Never one-sided, but lopsided.

 

[mchammer]

I was surprised myself. She also voted for the Iraq War Resolution and Obama ripped her for it in their primary debates. Is it possible she is rational in some ways, like foreign policy? It's not a local social issue.

Her and Lindsay Graham as fellow senators were the war party on overseas trips.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Blinken and Humpty Dumpty's hearing this morning was repeatedly interrupted by protesters shouting for a cease fire. Why is it none of them are shouting to free the hostages? Hard to take them or their stance seriously

 

[Garmel]

Yemen, a vassal state of Iran, just declared was on Israel. This is getting bad.

 

[Horn6721]

Let's see how many call for Yemen for a cease fire

 

[Monahorns]

That could be said of every dollar the US spends. Rein in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, DoD, public education, etc. (meaning what we really spend money on), and then I'll start sweating the chump change we send to Israel.

It all perpetuates the problem. Let's start solving the problem by not adding to the spending. Then we can get to reducing the previous spending, starting with everything leaving the country. As bad as welfare is at least the money is going back to Americans.

Really? The Nazis believed Jews were inherently inferior and corrupt, so they rounded up as many as they could regardless of their actions or role and intentionally murdered them for no strategic or military reason. You're accusing Israel of doing this to the Palestinians? Stopping Hamas has nothing to do with it. It's just about murdering Palestinians for shits and giggles. Am I correct?

Not sure the specific thing you are arguing against. I will comment on the existence of the partition and land issue. The actions and motivations while not exact are very similar. This is how the Gaza Strip was created. The Nazis didn't do what they did for no strategic or military reason. They did it to remove a subversive element that they believed was ruining their country morally, politically, and economically. They associated Jews closely with Communists, who had almost taken over the country. And yes, the Israelis see the Palestinians as inferior and corrupt as well. They also displaced Palestinians indiscriminately at the time.

Stopping Hamas has little to do with it in my opinion. Bombing Gaza isn't going to stop Hamas. It isn't about killing Palestinians strictly, but this also isn't a strategy that will resolve the problem. Netanyahu has called it "mowing the grass" in the past, reprisals attempting to manage the situation.

Lol. I'm saying that this idyllic world in which the US was a thriving isolationist republic that freely traded with the world is a myth or at most a very, very short-lived reality (less than 15 years). We were an expansionist power by the early 19th century. Jefferson wasn't an isolationist. Madison wasn't. Monroe sure as hell wasn't.

Were the Barbary pirates an existential threat? No, but they were screwing with our merchants, so we had to fight them. Again, this is an example of free trade having to rely on military power and at times military aggression.

I thought your original statement was that the US couldn't survive without being militarily interventionist. The best response is that we will never know because we can't go back in time. But i highly doubt it was necessary for the survival of the country. I agree with everything else you say here.

He viewed the USSR as the worse enemy. Long term, he was right. That doesn't mean he was right about everything. I think he was overly favorable to the Nazis and hostile to Jews, and I think he was wrong to oppose the Nuremberg Trials.

I do have sympathy for the argument that we should have allied with the less ideological components of the Wehrmacht to overthrow Hitler and then defeat the USSR. Some of those guys (such as Rommel and Ludwig Beck) were decent and honorable men. (My granddad who was a WWII vet and Naval captain believed this.) I don't sympathize with those think we should have buddied up with guys like Hitler, Göring, Himmler, and Keitel for any purpose. Those guys were evil, dangerous, and dishonorable.

But of course, this is somewhat of a disingenuous point for you to make, because you would have opposed fighting either one. You would have let Stalin and Hitler basically do what they wanted until they were on our shores.

I haven't read anything about Patton being favorable to Nazis. I think the Nuremberg Trials were show trials to justify Soviets punishing the Nazis. The US was the secondary partner there. The Soviets weren't good faith actors or trying to get actual justice.

Yeah, we shouldn't have allied with either Soviets or Nazis. There are a 1000 ways to protect the US without giving aid to the most evil government in history without allowing them onto American shores. FDR knew how evil the Bolsheviks were in the 20s and 30s. Those in power knew full well but kept it from the public.

Plus Germany was always going to attack the USSR at some point. The US wouldn't have needed to do anything to let those 2 countries destroy themselves.

The Nazis' territorial expansion ambitions were regional, but their influence-seeking was global. Furthermore, that region was big. It extended from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. There's no question that had the Greater German Reich become a reality we would have clashed with it, but it likely would have had a stronger economy and more advanced military than the USSR did.

I haven't read anything about this. Could you point me to an article or something?

 

[Monahorns]

I've long understood that, but Monahorns has always envisioned a world in which free trade can thrive without any sprawling military power. To him, it should just be a world of benevolent nations and people kindly and respectfully buying and selling goods and services. Naive as hell, but that's his ideal world.

That isn't how I see the world. Nope.

 

[Monahorns]

Let's see how many call for Yemen for a cease fire

I call for Yemen to never fire a shot

 

[mchammer]

Blinken and Humpty Dumpty's hearing this morning was repeatedly interrupted by protesters shouting for a cease fire. Why is it none of them are shouting to free the hostages? Hard to take them or their stance seriously

Sounds like an insurrection

 

[Mr. Deez]

It all perpetuates the problem. Let's start solving the problem by not adding to the spending. Then we can get to reducing the previous spending, starting with everything leaving the country. As bad as welfare is at least the money is going back to Americans.

Yes, but one thing does virtually nothing to cause the problem, and the other things do virtually everything to cause the problem. It's like an ER doctor whose patient has a gunshot wound to his head focusing on removing wart on the patient's hand. Both are a problem, but one is killing him, and the other is minor and trivial.

Not sure the specific thing you are arguing against. I will comment on the existence of the partition and land issue. The actions and motivations while not exact are very similar. This is how the Gaza Strip was created. The Nazis didn't do what they did for no strategic or military reason. They did it to remove a subversive element that they believed was ruining their country morally, politically, and economically. They associated Jews closely with Communists, who had almost taken over the country. And yes, the Israelis see the Palestinians as inferior and corrupt as well. They also displaced Palestinians indiscriminately at the time.

Stopping Hamas has little to do with it in my opinion. Bombing Gaza isn't going to stop Hamas. It isn't about killing Palestinians strictly, but this also isn't a strategy that will resolve the problem. Netanyahu has called it "mowing the grass" in the past, reprisals attempting to manage the situation.

So I have to go back and remind you of your statement that the US and Israel hold the position that if they don't treat Palestinians like Nazis treated Jews that the state of Israel wouldn't exist. I tried to show you the absurdity of that statement by pointing out what Nazis did to Jews to try to see if you actually stand by that premise. And sure enough, you do. Pretty baffling that you don't see the difference between responding to a blatant terror attack and the Holocaust, but you clearly don't. OK, that's fine.

I thought your original statement was that the US couldn't survive without being militarily interventionist. The best response is that we will never know because we can't go back in time. But i highly doubt it was necessary for the survival of the country. I agree with everything else you say here.

No. I said the US couldn't survive if it fought wars the way you suggest Israel should be responding to Hamas.

I haven't read anything about Patton being favorable to Nazis. I think the Nuremberg Trials were show trials to justify Soviets punishing the Nazis. The US was the secondary partner there. The Soviets weren't good faith actors or trying to get actual justice.

The big thing is that he was opposed to denazification and largely wanted to play ball with the surviving Nazis. I don't doubt that the Soviets were bad faith actors at Nuremberg. However, I do think they were useful in helping to uncover what the Nazis had done. I think something similar should have been done in Eastern Europe and in Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Yeah, we shouldn't have allied with either Soviets or Nazis. There are a 1000 ways to protect the US without giving aid to the most evil government in history without allowing them onto American shores. FDR knew how evil the Bolsheviks were in the 20s and 30s. Those in power knew full well but kept it from the public.

As usual, the problem is that "protecting the US" is about more than guarding its literal border.

Plus Germany was always going to attack the USSR at some point. The US wouldn't have needed to do anything to let those 2 countries destroy themselves.

But one of them was going to win eventually and become very powerful.

I haven't read anything about this. Could you point me to an article or something?

Which part?

That isn't how I see the world. Nope.

 

[LonghornCatholic]

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]