Jayrod
Footballguy
I disagree on one point. They have a very special hatred for the Jews. If they could have control of Israel and get rid of all Jews, they'd hunker down quite a bit, but that is just speculation. You could be right.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Iran Launches "Large Scale Attack" on Israel (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsy Ejotuz
- Start date
bagger
Footballguy
What war crimes were we guilty of in WWII?
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
we did drop an atomic bomb on civilians
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
By all accounts, this guy was in the middle of it (probably being protected by human shields most of the time). He's not one of the guys sitting back in the UAE pulling all the strings and flipping the levers. Which is pretty much my point. Guys like this guy are a dime a dozen and there are hundreds that are waiting to be called to take his place. I don't think people quite grasp the dedication. They have nothing but time.Death is an honor on that side of the coin. There are hundreds ready to take up the charge. In the struggle between Islam and Israel, this has been true for hundreds of years and there is no reason to believe it won't continue for hundreds more. IF Israel manages to terminate the identity of "Hamas", the torch will assuredly be picked up by another faction with a different name.There is a photo of the corpse in question making the rounds. I'm very cautiously optimistic.IDF checking if Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar killed in Gaza strike
Officials to 'Post': Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar killed in Rafah, Gaza Strip
In an unexpected turn of events, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was killed during an IDF operation in Rafah, potentially reshaping the conflict's dynamics. No hostages were killed during the operation.www.jpost.com
Israel is picking them off.
Who wants to be the next leader of Hamas?? Your life expectancy will be about 30 days.
Agree, but the leaders of these groups have always been safe for the most part, and never want to get into the actual fray. They let the minions do the dirty work.
That has been changed as of late.
bagger
Footballguy
My wife’s grandfather who is currently 100 was a marine and fought the Japanese island to island in the end days of the war.
I am glad they dropped the bombs. I likely don’t have my kids if they didn’t.
War is hell.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I have seen enough articles about denying aid and food to the area and there are many exanples of IDF soliders uploading videos while they are doing vile things i would be ashamed to see our troops engaged in.
"When Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip with “no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed”, he said: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” Perhaps Gallant only meant Hamas but he didn’t say so and that left a lot of leeway for those who would go further. In an echo of the US after 9/11, the Israel Defence Forces posted on X: “You either stand with Israel or you stand with terrorism”. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted: “Anyone that is pro-Palestinian is pro-Hamas.”
"Following the discovery last week of a ‘Palestinians as cockroaches’ Twitter post published by pro-Israel figure Arsen Ostrovsky, a featured speaker at this week’s ‘Antisemitism: Face It, Fight It’ conference in Ottawa"
"The current environment is especially ripe for atrocities given the unprecedented intensity of Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza and the inflammatory rhetoric of an Israeli political and military leadership motivated by a combination of trauma, humiliation and a stated desire for "vengeance." When the Israeli defense minister refers to two million Palestinians in Gaza as "human animals," anything and everything becomes possible. Likewise, threats by Israel's leaders to turn Gaza into a "deserted island" or that "Gaza will be city of tents," should be taken seriously, particularly when Israel has both the means and the motive to deliver."
"Following the discovery last week of a ‘Palestinians as cockroaches’ Twitter post published by pro-Israel figure Arsen Ostrovsky, a featured speaker at this week’s ‘Antisemitism: Face It, Fight It’ conference in Ottawa"
"The current environment is especially ripe for atrocities given the unprecedented intensity of Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza and the inflammatory rhetoric of an Israeli political and military leadership motivated by a combination of trauma, humiliation and a stated desire for "vengeance." When the Israeli defense minister refers to two million Palestinians in Gaza as "human animals," anything and everything becomes possible. Likewise, threats by Israel's leaders to turn Gaza into a "deserted island" or that "Gaza will be city of tents," should be taken seriously, particularly when Israel has both the means and the motive to deliver."
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Do you understand what a ground invasion of Japan would have looked like?we did drop an atomic bomb on civilians
Jayrod
Footballguy
Ok, did they rape every woman and burn the babies alive though?
Because that is what Hamas did. Doing some shameful things doesn't mean they are equivalent, right?
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
then that makes America no better than the terrorists in these other countries.My wife’s grandfather who is currently 100 was a marine and fought the Japanese island to island in the end days of the war.
I am glad they dropped the bombs. I likely don’t have my kids if they didn’t.
War is hell.
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
I'd like to think that I do, we have a pretty good idea based off of what we did in Saipan and the Mariana islands. Just so I'm clear, you are ok trading civilian life for military members lives if it ends a conflict quicker? I don't want to misconstrue your words.Do you understand what a ground invasion of Japan would have looked like?we did drop an atomic bomb on civilians
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
And this is not an actual war by any reasonable definition. That requires two states. Gaza is not a state. Its a territory. If it were a state then the case for war crimes by both the Hamas and Israeli leadership would be pretty ironclad.
Ignoring that, there are still rules of engagement that have clearly been trampled here.
Ignoring that, there are still rules of engagement that have clearly been trampled here.
Last edited:
Jayrod
Footballguy
Japanese soldiers called the Chinese "logs" because the treated them like inanimate objects during the Sino-Chinese wars just prior to WW2.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Their treatment of their enemies was some of the worst ever recorded. Gengis Khan/Vlad the Impaler level stuff.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Unit 731 - Wikipedia
Their treatment of their enemies was some of the worst ever recorded. Gengis Khan/Vlad the Impaler level stuff.
Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
Jayrod
Footballguy
That's like saying the Civil War wasn't a war because the Confedaracy wasn't a recognized government.
Hamas was the ruling power in Gaza. They were actually elected into power.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Both sides are doing horrendous things. It’s just a terrible situation with villains on both sides. It’s ok to acknowledge that without going all BUT THEIR HORRENDOUS THINGS WERE WAY WORSE!!!
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
I get it, we all have our own opinions on the A bomb and this thread is about Iran/Israel/Hamas but after reading Eisenhower's memoir "the white house years" for a senior leadership class I went down a rabbit hole and an overwhelming number of senior leaders believed the war with Japan was already come to terms with surrender
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
beer 30
Footballguy
Curtis LeMay enters the discussion....I get it, we all have our own opinions on the A bomb and this thread is about Iran/Israel/Hamas but after reading Eisenhower's memoir "the white house years" for a senior leadership class I went down a rabbit hole and an overwhelming number of senior leaders believed the war with Japan was already come to terms with surrender
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I never said they were equivalent. My position is that Hamas is worse, and have said as much, but IMO many of the things I have seen evidence of from the Israel retaliation is terrible and should be condoned. I don't appreciate my tax dollars going to supply them doing this. I also get the feeling we are not in agreement about how common things I am talking about from Israel's side over the past year is. I don't know what you watch and read, but I am surprised when people say things like you posted above about them thinking they are subhuman and want them wiped out. The people in Israel's government and IDF soldiers don't seem to be too shy about their opinions.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Is this a trick question?
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
No its nothing like that primarily because current day definitions of war being discussed didnt exist back then. Anything else?
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
I get it, we all have our own opinions on the A bomb and this thread is about Iran/Israel/Hamas but after reading Eisenhower's memoir "the white house years" for a senior leadership class I went down a rabbit hole and an overwhelming number of senior leaders believed the war with Japan was already come to terms with surrender
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
The truth about that came out like the truth about WMDs did. I dont know why people feel compelled to defend those actions like the truth still isnt known.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yes, of course. Aren't you?
I mean, would I trade the lives of a million innocent school children for one US serviceman? Okay, probably not.
Would I trade the lives of 100K Japanese civilians for the lives of 1M US servicemen? Yes, absolutely. I'd personally drop the bomb myself if that was the deal on the table, and I'd consider you evil if you did otherwise. (I'm not kidding about the "drop the bomb myself" thing. I would consider that morally obligatory.)
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
This argument is like the not guilty by reason of insanity defense in a murder trial. Of course you’re insane! You killed people. War is hell.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
"The Japanese had already sued for peace. Also, they refused to surrender after we nuked one of their cities, and that's how you know how serious they were about ending the war."I get it, we all have our own opinions on the A bomb and this thread is about Iran/Israel/Hamas but after reading Eisenhower's memoir "the white house years" for a senior leadership class I went down a rabbit hole and an overwhelming number of senior leaders believed the war with Japan was already come to terms with surrender
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I would not trust some of you people to defend my garden against rabbits, let alone my country against our enemies. Never had that worry with FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Clinton, just to pick a few totally random examples from 30+ years ago.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Those don’t seem very random
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
They're just noteworthy presidents from the past century or so. A representative group. There are some very good presidents in there, some not so great ones, and some in between. That's the American experience. But they were all openly pro-US and could be counted upon to take our side in a conflict.
I'm leaving out all modern presidents because that would be too political. This is just history.
For the record, I also think that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHWB would be on our side too.
Last edited:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Well, you are trusting at least one of those guys to defend the country right now.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I agree 100% with the above scenario, but don't see that much in common with the example of Isreal and Hamas and our involvement with that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is a point well taken. I'm obviously making a sideways point here, but I'm trying not to take it up to the modern day.
You guys should probably do some more research. Here's a good place to start.I get it, we all have our own opinions on the A bomb and this thread is about Iran/Israel/Hamas but after reading Eisenhower's memoir "the white house years" for a senior leadership class I went down a rabbit hole and an overwhelming number of senior leaders believed the war with Japan was already come to terms with surrender
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950,
General MacArthur was also against it, to me these were the people on the front lines who could best gauge where the war was actually going vice those that were coming up with worst case scenarios
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
as a service member i know what i signed up for, my kids was civilians did not
CGRdrJoe
Footballguy
once again as a service member i signed up and my kids did not
Jayrod
Footballguy
What the heck are you talking about?
You give some made up definition of war, then state that the Civil War doesn't count because it was too long ago?
Go argue with the wall then. Just freaking weird.
I'm assuming this is all some bizarre tactic to delegitamize Israel's actions.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Your point is well taken, but not all those US servicemen Ivan was referring to signed up voluntarily. When we are talking scales of death and destruction like what a Japan invasion would have taken, i think its a fair point to say dropping them saved countless lives.
But again, even if i can meet ivan on that example, i dont see the parallels trying to be made to Israel and Hamas and the current situation.
rockaction
Footballguy
I have a lot to say that I think would surprise some people, but we’re not really doing politics right now. I will say that the Obama infatuation with Iran and the JCPOA is one of the weirdest things I’ve seen in politics, maybe ever. It seems like everything he touches realigns our alliance from Israel to Iran. I can’t explain some of things pursued and done since Oct. 7th started and especially when it became aware that Joe Biden was not running the show. It all happened in real time for me back before even D-Day on Twitter. That’s how I knew Obama/Harris was running the country and Harris was going to be running as president. I actually said as much (minus the Harris for Pres without a convention part because even I never thought they’d be so brazen) on the social media site, but have since deleted my name and account from the mix.
It was all very . . . odd to watch the Twitter game of Obama and Biden in real time. It let you know who was boss. They should not have been on Twitter. Either of them.
Anyway, I digress a bit. There’s nothing we can do about this except pray for peace and will it with every fiber of our being. I don’t think the Israel/Hamas conflict/war gets anybody anywhere good or righteous.
My favorite title of a journal article from the past forty years comes from a guy who wrote about Ben Rhodes, who was Obama’s foreign policy guru who had all of the qualifications of a Master of Fine Arts from NYU in writing.
Yes, you read his credentials right. An undergrad in Poli Sci. A master’s in fine arts. Anyway, herewith two-time Pulitzer author Thomas Ricks’s profile of Ben Rhodes and Obama. You’re apparently going to have to search for it because our own display format won’t allow it. It’s entitled this (I swear to God this is online). From Foreign Policy journal: “A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the ******* who is the President’s foreign policy guru” where the asterisks rhyme with “mass swole.”
It was all very . . . odd to watch the Twitter game of Obama and Biden in real time. It let you know who was boss. They should not have been on Twitter. Either of them.
Anyway, I digress a bit. There’s nothing we can do about this except pray for peace and will it with every fiber of our being. I don’t think the Israel/Hamas conflict/war gets anybody anywhere good or righteous.
My favorite title of a journal article from the past forty years comes from a guy who wrote about Ben Rhodes, who was Obama’s foreign policy guru who had all of the qualifications of a Master of Fine Arts from NYU in writing.
Yes, you read his credentials right. An undergrad in Poli Sci. A master’s in fine arts. Anyway, herewith two-time Pulitzer author Thomas Ricks’s profile of Ben Rhodes and Obama. You’re apparently going to have to search for it because our own display format won’t allow it. It’s entitled this (I swear to God this is online). From Foreign Policy journal: “A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the ******* who is the President’s foreign policy guru” where the asterisks rhyme with “mass swole.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/2...-who-is-the-presidents-foreign-policy-guru-4/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/2...-who-is-the-presidents-foreign-policy-guru-4/
Sparky Polastri
Footballguy
No, it's merely pointing out your comparison is severely lacking and not applicable in any fashion whatsoever
In my view, Israel can do whatever it wants. That's their choice. The US doesn't need to be funding the choices that clearly go against international rules of engagement especially when we aren't part of the engagement. Pretty simple really.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So… politics?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
LOL. I totally just tried to copy/paste and open that as is. I will blame the early morning more than my lack of reading comprehension.
rockaction
Footballguy
At least you tried to read my post. I still can't get over both the article title and the subject matter. It's not even that political an article. Like the author says, he voted for President Obama twice. What is really stunning is the article in the New York Times that he is referring to in his daily dispatch and what Rhodes says in it, nakedly admitting that the Obama administration he was a part of lied about the JCPOA to the media and the media ran with their lies. It's ****ing incredible, astounding, and left me in a pretty dark place about the state of our leadership in America. I remember having absolute flame-throwing anger directed at me on this very board back when they were doing the JCPOA and it didn't seem up to snuff. I remember one of the guys I like, Dr. Detroit (and few others like Henry Ford) absolutely trying every technique in the book to render my opinion invalid.
And guess what? They were lied to. It never sounded up to snuff. It always sounded wrong. And get this, folks: they're still pushing the JCPOA as the deal of a lifetime, a deal in which the IAEA gets their assurances that Iran isn't going nuclear from . . . Iran. I had to read the Israeli press to find this out back in the day. Needless to say, I was source questioned to death about my assertions and was finally told that it was okay if Iran had nukes because Israel did also.
The thought that went into this by smart people is stunning and disillusioning. It's also relevant to this thread, as Iran still is using its three "H" proxies (the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas) to attack both America and Israel as we speak.
Yes, this was a "both sides" post. Because both sides are leading us into unchartered waters in a hostile world, and neither side has been up for it since 9/11/01.
Last edited:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Don't care. I want leaders who value American lives more than the lives of our enemies. I fully expect other nations to promote leaders like that, and we absolutely should as well. Doing otherwise is dangerous and foolish.
Historically, our leaders from both parties understood this.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Fair point. I consider Iran and its proxy an enemy, but not the entire population of Gaza and Lebanon. I dont think its unreasonable to question motives and tactics we have seen in the last year.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I have no problem with that. For example, I've argued in this thread that Israel should just shrug off small-scale attacks from its enemies because the cost of dealing with them isn't worth it. Let your missile defense do its job and just move on. It would wrong, IMO, for Israel to do what it's currently doing in Gaza in response to an ordinary rocket attack of the type we see on a regular basis.
For me though, October 7 was a qualitatively different type of attack that makes it mandatory to remove Hamas from power, regardless of the cost to civilians. I felt that way a year ago, and I feel that way now. When your opponent tells you that you are in an existential conflict of his choosing, you should believe him and make sure that he is on the losing side of that conflict.
(I only speak for myself, but obviously I am far from alone on this. Israel certainly saw October 7 as I did.)
Last edited:
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
Please explain previous Islamic expansion to Spain and North Africa, which have almost no Jews. The same can be said for Christian expansion during the Crusades. It's not a hatred of a particular belief system like 'they are Jewish' or 'American'. That's the convenient excuse for expansion to get natural resources, better economy, people to tax, etc, etc. You can read all about it The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. I know e
beer 30
Footballguy
Good post...now lets talk about those 8 years
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I see this POV and then that gets me right back to my position that I have 0 care what Israel does itself if they have the ability to do so, but that is not the case. Piggybacking on your point above I also care about our country and troops more than I do another country's, even our friends. I would have fewer issues with their tactics if that was the end of it, but it is not. Every day we are closer and closer to a regional war that we will be involved with. Well, we already are, but I think you get what I mean.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I've never had the impression that our middle east policy historically has had anything to do with valuing American lives - really it seems like the complete opposite. If our policy were designed to value American lives, surely we would have ceased all support for and association with Israel and to have expelled their influence from our country many decades ago.
Dial back the snark and passive aggressive stuff.
McBokonon
Footballguy
Reports of explosions heard in Tehran, reports are these are from Israeli airstrikes.
Agenda Free TV link
Reminder this isn't a WWII or politics thread. Keep it to news updates, you donks.
Agenda Free TV link
Reminder this isn't a WWII or politics thread. Keep it to news updates, you donks.
Similar threads
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
