Israel war

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Trapper, when a Republican is president, for sure- “I am trying to say that the US did what it thought was best, and that there may be better things we could have done, in hindsight.”


It’s okay to say something that suggests that Biden is less than perfect. He’s not running for anything, and no one is reading. It’s okay.

Has Trump taken over your Swill account?

BTW I have said several times on here that Trump had the right idea and did the right thing regarding exiting from Afghanistan...even if the details of what he did were not well planned.

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

The point is that one side is supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to play by the rules even when the other side doesn't. You know...the moral high ground.

When you persecute a segment of the population systematically for 75 years, don't be surprised when they go to extreme lengths to resist.

Where on Earth did you get that dumb idea?  

One of your better quotes.  

When Britain got behind the militant Zionists move to Palistine after World War One this outcome of a continued violent confrontation between the invading Zionists and the Palistinians who owned Palistine at that time was preordained.

TravelinMan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

The point is that one side is supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to play by the rules even when the other side doesn't. You know...the moral high ground.

When you persecute a segment of the population systematically for 75 years, don't be surprised when they go to extreme lengths to resist.

Where on Earth did you get that dumb idea?

We've been over this.

Cameron wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Many people are saying it.  Some of the best people.

It is one of the IDF's favorite things to say about themselves, and many people who defend what they are doing to Gaza parrot it.

Wiki: Purity of Arms

Israel Tells ICJ It Has the “Most Moral Army in the World” at Genocide Hearing

Genocide “stands alone amongst the violations of international law as the epitome and zenith of evil. It has been described correctly as the ‘crime of crimes,’ the ultimate in wickedness,” professor and U.K. lawyer Malcolm Shaw argued on behalf of Israel. Shaw said that Israel has the “most moral army in the world” and “does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved.”

Now go ahead and post some more emojis, dickhead.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

So it is your contention that the US should not at any point have done anything differently vis a vis Israel based on the information we had at the time? That only hindsight could have predicted all the myriad failures of the last 12 months of Israel policy?

Because I can think of some people who were predicting that the US policies would cause shit to spiral and escalate before it happened...

As best as I can remember your only solution was to cut Israel off from more military aid in the form of weapons.

It was pointed out that would not work for a number of reasons and would be counter productive.

What else did you suggest that I am ignoring?

Also, FWIW, with or without US weapon sales, as you put it "the shit was likely to spiral and escalate".

The weapons Israel is using are already in Israel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

That is not an answer to my question, it is a restatement of previous statements you've made. Try again.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Trapper, when a Republican is president, for sure- “I am trying to say that the US did what it thought was best, and that there may be better things we could have done, in hindsight.”


It’s okay to say something that suggests that Biden is less than perfect. He’s not running for anything, and no one is reading. It’s okay.

Has Trump taken over your Swill account?

BTW I have said several times on here that Trump had the right idea and did the right thing regarding exiting from Afghanistan...even if the details of what he did were not well planned.  

I’m sure. Alas, you were busy on wells at the time so we can never know for sure the amount of candor and restraint you showed when it isn’t your favorite team in question.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Has Trump taken over your Swill account?

BTW I have said several times on here that Trump had the right idea and did the right thing regarding exiting from Afghanistan...even if the details of what he did were not well planned.  

I’m sure. Alas, you were busy on wells at the time so we can never know for sure the amount of candor and restraint you showed when it isn’t your favorite team in question.

I have stated over and over that I am driven by the policies proposed, not the personalities.

I have also stated over and over that the Republican Party's goal of rule by the wealthy is not a policy I can support.

That was what I said on TOB.

That is what I have said on here.

I accept the accusation that I am a partisan for the United States of America and for what it stands for: One Nation with Libety & Justice for all.

That of our two major Parties one, the Republicans, have lost sight of that, is something I cannot fix, but only point at.

Some on this board have a problem that I support the only Party which follows the creed, however imperfectly, of the United States.

I have no idea why.

I also find an appeal to my past posting on TOB to be odd.  However if you had access to it you would have no more enlightenment as to my beliefs or posting, other than, I suppose, that on TOB I would post much longer and detailed discussions of why.

Something that is widely mocked on this board.

edit - so I keep my posts much shorter on here.

Cameron wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Where on Earth did you get that dumb idea?

We've been over this.

Cameron wrote:

It is one of the IDF's favorite things to say about themselves, and many people who defend what they are doing to Gaza parrot it.

Wiki: Purity of Arms

Israel Tells ICJ It Has the “Most Moral Army in the World” at Genocide Hearing



Now go ahead and post some more emojis, dickhead.

And we're the shining light on the hill and make our kids pledge their allegiance, what's your point?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

So it is your contention that the US should not at any point have done anything differently vis a vis Israel based on the information we had at the time? That only hindsight could have predicted all the myriad failures of the last 12 months of Israel policy?

Because I can think of some people who were predicting that the US policies would cause shit to spiral and escalate before it happened...

As best as I can remember your only solution was to cut Israel off from more military aid in the form of weapons.

It was pointed out that would not work for a number of reasons and would be counter productive.

What else did you suggest that I am ignoring?

Also, FWIW, with or without US weapon sales, as you put it "the shit was likely to spiral and escalate".

The weapons Israel is using are already in Israel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

Really seems like the federal government is getting fleeced by inflated missile prices. No way should these things cost that much

Who's winning?

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As best as I can remember your only solution was to cut Israel off from more military aid in the form of weapons.

It was pointed out that would not work for a number of reasons and would be counter productive.

What else did you suggest that I am ignoring?

Also, FWIW, with or without US weapon sales, as you put it "the shit was likely to spiral and escalate".

The weapons Israel is using are already in Israel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Really seems like the federal government is getting fleeced by inflated missile prices. No way should these things cost that much

Materials to make them don't cost that much, for sure, however the engineering wasn't cheap, nor the "black room" manufacturing.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As best as I can remember your only solution was to cut Israel off from more military aid in the form of weapons.

It was pointed out that would not work for a number of reasons and would be counter productive.

What else did you suggest that I am ignoring?

Also, FWIW, with or without US weapon sales, as you put it "the shit was likely to spiral and escalate".

The weapons Israel is using are already in Israel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

The missile defenses are a joint operation, one of the reasons that Israel relies so much on US tech weapons is that it allows this type of close cooperation during operations.  One of the reasons the US does this is that it allows some, and as we have seen, apparently not enough, level of "seat at the table" regarding Israel military decisions and operations.

As an aside, as the defense of a total country from missile attacks Israel is probably far ahead of any other country on the globe, including the US, though is defense of the US lessor defenses the US had better technology but way more land mass to defend.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

So it is your contention that the US should not at any point have done anything differently vis a vis Israel based on the information we had at the time? That only hindsight could have predicted all the myriad failures of the last 12 months of Israel policy?

Because I can think of some people who were predicting that the US policies would cause shit to spiral and escalate before it happened...

As best as I can remember your only solution was to cut Israel off from more military aid in the form of weapons.

It was pointed out that would not work for a number of reasons and would be counter productive.

What else did you suggest that I am ignoring?

Also, FWIW, with or without US weapon sales, as you put it "the shit was likely to spiral and escalate".

The weapons Israel is using are already in Israel.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

Also dispels the notion that the US has no influence over what Israel does or doesn't do militarily.

Heat Miser wrote:

Cameron wrote:

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

Also dispels the notion that the US has no influence over what Israel does or doesn't do militarily.

Are you trying to suggest that the US refuse to defend its number one ally from a missile attack in order to force Israel to bend to the US will?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Cameron wrote:

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

Also dispels the notion that the US has no influence over what Israel does or doesn't do militarily.

Are you trying to suggest that the US refuse to defend its number one ally from a missile attack in order to force Israel to bend to the US will?

Prior to the event, yes. You go into Lebanon, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. If you don't stop leveling Gaza, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. You nuke Iran, you're fucking on your own dealing with the blowback. There's no unlimited checkbook for you to just do whatever the fuck you want.

And BTW...this is not a novel concept. It's been done before. Very recently in fact.

Biden says he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches major invasion of Rafah

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

[tw]1841809980288061550[/tw]

Not offensive weapons, but sort of dispels the notion that the IDF is totally self sufficient. Not that any serious person ever believed that, but still...

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Really seems like the federal government is getting fleeced by inflated missile prices. No way should these things cost that much

Materials to make them don't cost that much, for sure, however the engineering wasn't cheap, nor the "black room" manufacturing.

Sure, it's expensive. Still, the profit margin on these things has to be north of 80%

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that the US refuse to defend its number one ally from a missile attack in order to force Israel to bend to the US will?

Prior to the event, yes. You go into Lebanon, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. If you don't stop leveling Gaza, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. You nuke Iran, you're fucking on your own dealing with the blowback. There's no unlimited checkbook for you to just do whatever the fuck you want.

And BTW...this is not a novel concept. It's been done before. Very recently in fact.

Biden says he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches major invasion of Rafah

It will happen, after the election unfortunately.  Israel is leveraging election uncertainty.  They can do quite a lot right now without blowback from their biggest ally.  I'm with you mostly, this belligerence is starting to piss me off.  I understand the need to respond strongly but they are doing too much now, spreading too thin and lowering the odds they can defend themselves on their own.

They should have just wound down the Gaza operation and nothing more.  If not then, definitely after they blew up the Hezbollah electronics.  Let that shit simmer now so it doesn't just keep escalating.  If you must attack Hezbollah further, wait out longer so this isn't viewed as constant escalations.  Perhaps Iran would not have fired ballistic missiles at them if they did this necessitating another response. Israel now almost has to attack Iran directly. Where does it end?

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that the US refuse to defend its number one ally from a missile attack in order to force Israel to bend to the US will?

Prior to the event, yes. You go into Lebanon, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. If you don't stop leveling Gaza, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. You nuke Iran, you're fucking on your own dealing with the blowback. There's no unlimited checkbook for you to just do whatever the fuck you want.

Wow

In negotiating classes, we were taught that a "take it or leave it" position is more a way to shut down dialog than to reach a common understanding.

The US kept Israel from attacking Hezbollah for almost a year after the October 7th attacks, while Hezbollah was raining missiles down on northern Israel and forcing tens of thousands of Israelites to leave their homes, so indeed we have some influence because of our relationships.

The US interests, I assume, are the ones we always have as "world cop". Free trade via free sea lanes, and in the middle east, the free trade of oil. Keeping the warring to a minimum (and perhaps the destruction of Iran's surrogate "terrorist" forces link Hamas & Hezbollah, I don't discount the idea that the US is in reality cheering Israel on in secret) and keep it from interfering with global trade.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that the US refuse to defend its number one ally from a missile attack in order to force Israel to bend to the US will?

Prior to the event, yes. You go into Lebanon, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. If you don't stop leveling Gaza, you're on your own dealing with the blowback. You nuke Iran, you're fucking on your own dealing with the blowback. There's no unlimited checkbook for you to just do whatever the fuck you want.

Wow

In negotiating classes, we were taught that a "take it or leave it" position is more a way to shut down dialog than to reach a common understanding.

The US kept Israel from attacking Hezbollah for almost a year after the October 7th attacks, while Hezbollah was raining missiles down on northern Israel and forcing tens of thousands of Israelites to leave their homes, so indeed we have some influence because of our relationships.

The US interests, I assume, are the ones we always have as "world cop".  Free trade via free sea lanes, and in the middle east, the free trade of oil.  Keeping the warring to a minimum (and perhaps the destruction of Iran's surrogate "terrorist" forces link Hamas & Hezbollah, I don't discount the idea that the US is in reality cheering Israel on in secret) and keep it from interfering with global trade.

In the almost one year after 10/7 of "tit for tat" exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah, it was Israel that fired over 80% of the missiles. You know that right? You also know that tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon were forced from their homes as well, right?

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Wow

In negotiating classes, we were taught that a "take it or leave it" position is more a way to shut down dialog than to reach a common understanding.

The US kept Israel from attacking Hezbollah for almost a year after the October 7th attacks, while Hezbollah was raining missiles down on northern Israel and forcing tens of thousands of Israelites to leave their homes, so indeed we have some influence because of our relationships.

The US interests, I assume, are the ones we always have as "world cop".  Free trade via free sea lanes, and in the middle east, the free trade of oil.  Keeping the warring to a minimum (and perhaps the destruction of Iran's surrogate "terrorist" forces link Hamas & Hezbollah, I don't discount the idea that the US is in reality cheering Israel on in secret) and keep it from interfering with global trade.

In the almost one year after 10/7 of "tit for tat" exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah, it was Israel that fired over 80% of the missiles. You know that right? You also know that tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon were forced from their homes as well, right?

Hezbollah fired missiles first. Israel returned fired in defense. The US stopped Israel from invading.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Wow

In negotiating classes, we were taught that a "take it or leave it" position is more a way to shut down dialog than to reach a common understanding.

The US kept Israel from attacking Hezbollah for almost a year after the October 7th attacks, while Hezbollah was raining missiles down on northern Israel and forcing tens of thousands of Israelites to leave their homes, so indeed we have some influence because of our relationships.

The US interests, I assume, are the ones we always have as "world cop".  Free trade via free sea lanes, and in the middle east, the free trade of oil.  Keeping the warring to a minimum (and perhaps the destruction of Iran's surrogate "terrorist" forces link Hamas & Hezbollah, I don't discount the idea that the US is in reality cheering Israel on in secret) and keep it from interfering with global trade.

In the almost one year after 10/7 of "tit for tat" exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah, it was Israel that fired over 80% of the missiles. You know that right? You also know that tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon were forced from their homes as well, right?

Hezbollah fired missiles first. Israel returned fired in defense. The US stopped Israel from invading.

And why do you suppose Hezbollah fired first? To get Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza of course. And yes, Israel fired back x 4 in "defense". Just as they have leveled Gaza in "defense" for 10/7.

And the US stopped Israel from invading Rafah...which is in Gaza.

The US has not stopped Israel from bombing the capitals of two neighboring sovereign nations however. Nations, along with Gaza & the West Bank, that don't have the luxury of an Iron Dome. All in "defense".

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Hezbollah fired missiles first. Israel returned fired in defense. The US stopped Israel from invading.

And why do you suppose Hezbollah fired first? To get Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza of course. And yes, Israel fired back x 4 in "defense". Just as they have leveled Gaza in "defense" for 10/7.

And the US stopped Israel from invading Rafah...which is in Gaza.

The US has not stopped Israel from bombing the capitals of two neighboring sovereign nations however. Nations, along with Gaza & the West Bank, that don't have the luxury of an Iron Dome. All in "defense".

You want to talk about what the US hasn't accomplished, I want to talk about what the US has accomplished.

Netanyahu is keeping the war going hoping for a Trump victory & to save his own skin.

The US has allegedly used what leverage it has to keep this from spirally out of control while maybe Netanyahu wants it to spiral out of control.

The US has laid down a red line regarding attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

And why do you suppose Hezbollah fired first? To get Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza of course. And yes, Israel fired back x 4 in "defense". Just as they have leveled Gaza in "defense" for 10/7.

And the US stopped Israel from invading Rafah...which is in Gaza.

The US has not stopped Israel from bombing the capitals of two neighboring sovereign nations however. Nations, along with Gaza & the West Bank, that don't have the luxury of an Iron Dome. All in "defense".

You want to talk about what the US hasn't accomplished, I want to talk about what the US has accomplished.

Netanyahu is keeping the war going hoping for a Trump victory & to save his own skin.

The US has allegedly used what leverage it has to keep this from spirally out of control while maybe Netanyahu wants it to spiral out of control.

The US has laid down a red line regarding attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Biden also said Rafah was a red line.

Remind me, how are things in Rafah right now?

You are such a pathetic simp.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You want to talk about what the US hasn't accomplished, I want to talk about what the US has accomplished.

Netanyahu is keeping the war going hoping for a Trump victory & to save his own skin.

The US has allegedly used what leverage it has to keep this from spirally out of control while maybe Netanyahu wants it to spiral out of control.

The US has laid down a red line regarding attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Biden also said Rafah was a red line.

Remind me, how are things in Rafah right now?

You are such a pathetic simp.

If Hezbollah is being treated so poorly, why to they keep attacking Israel? Why don't they agree to a cease fire? Why not sue for peace?

Neither side wants a cease fire. They just want to fight.

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You want to talk about what the US hasn't accomplished, I want to talk about what the US has accomplished.

Netanyahu is keeping the war going hoping for a Trump victory & to save his own skin.

The US has allegedly used what leverage it has to keep this from spirally out of control while maybe Netanyahu wants it to spiral out of control.

The US has laid down a red line regarding attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Biden also said Rafah was a red line.

Remind me, how are things in Rafah right now?

You are such a pathetic simp.

If Hezbollah is being treated so poorly, why to they keep attacking Israel?  Why don't they agree to a cease fire?  Why not sue for peace?

Neither side wants a cease fire.  They just want to fight.

Uh...Israel has shit on at least 2 cease fires that Hezbollah agreed to. One side absolutely wants a cease fire. The other side does not.  BB doesn't want a cease fire because you can't prosecute a war criminal while the war is still hot. Maybe you forgot that Israel assassinated Hamas's chief negotiator a few months ago in Tehran as talks were ongoing?

Heat Miser wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

If Hezbollah is being treated so poorly, why to they keep attacking Israel?  Why don't they agree to a cease fire?  Why not sue for peace?

Neither side wants a cease fire.  They just want to fight.

Uh...Israel has shit on at least 2 cease fires that Hezbollah agreed to. One side absolutely wants a cease fire. The other side does not.  BB doesn't want a cease fire because you can't prosecute a war criminal while the war is still hot. Maybe you forgot that Israel assassinated Hamas's chief negotiator a few months ago in Tehran as talks were ongoing?

Okay.

IMO the only way to be fair in our discussion is to be skeptical of the claims from all sides, including the US.

One side says they agreed to a cease fire, the other sides says they agree in principle but heard nothing about any concrete cease fire.

In that process Israel killed the Hezbollah leader who supposedly agreed to a more specific cease fire.

FUBAR

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Hezbollah fired missiles first. Israel returned fired in defense. The US stopped Israel from invading.

And why do you suppose Hezbollah fired first? To get Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza of course. And yes, Israel fired back x 4 in "defense". Just as they have leveled Gaza in "defense" for 10/7.

And the US stopped Israel from invading Rafah...which is in Gaza.

The US has not stopped Israel from bombing the capitals of two neighboring sovereign nations however. Nations, along with Gaza & the West Bank, that don't have the luxury of an Iron Dome. All in "defense".

Sorry Israel killed your terrorist friends

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Hezbollah fired missiles first. Israel returned fired in defense. The US stopped Israel from invading.

And why do you suppose Hezbollah fired first? To get Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza of course. And yes, Israel fired back x 4 in "defense". Just as they have leveled Gaza in "defense" for 10/7.

And the US stopped Israel from invading Rafah...which is in Gaza.

The US has not stopped Israel from bombing the capitals of two neighboring sovereign nations however. Nations, along with Gaza & the West Bank, that don't have the luxury of an Iron Dome. All in "defense".

Sorry Israel killed your terrorist friends

Yes, they've killed 40k+ terrorists. Terror grannies, terror women, and little budding terror children every one. And they've displaced millions of terrorists as well. Bravo. Well done.

How’s the AI war progressing? Gaza and Lebanon are the modern warfare classroom right now. US is eagerly watching.

kingstonlake wrote:How’s the AI war progressing? Gaza and Lebanon are the modern warfare classroom right now. US is eagerly watching.

Israel is using an AI app for targeting, not sure what else, what do you know?

Trapper Gus wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:How’s the AI war progressing? Gaza and Lebanon are the modern warfare classroom right now. US is eagerly watching.

Israel is using an AI app for targeting, not sure what else, what do you know?

Seems their AI needs more training. Not quite ready for prime time.

-------
Since too many posts were made, this topic has been divided automatically. You can find the rest of this topic here :
https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t26223-israel-war