Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on April 06, 2017, 10:46:03 PM
-
A. I have never followed the Syrian issue, at all.
B. Conspiracy Co-worker thinks the Saudis are responsible for the WMD attack in Syria.
C. He has said for the past year or so that Assad is being unfairly vilified.
D. He gets his news from RT, some Iranian news service, and Zero Hedge.
I don't usually try to talk him out of this stuff, but I often wonder what on earth he's talking about.
-
I don't know who it is, but I don't believe for a second that Assad gassed the rebels.
-
I don't know who it is, but I don't believe for a second that Assad gassed the rebels.
Ditto.
-
I'm still sorting through the chaff on this event but one "commentary" I heard last night was to the effect that Assad does not directly control the chemical weapons and that his high ranking generals are to blame ??? I certainly hope that we had good intel on this as to the alleged source of the strike.
On the other hand, lil Kim ought to take notice.
-
I don't know who it is, but I don't believe for a second that Assad gassed the rebels.
Ditto.
-
Ditto.
Ditto the Ditto.
They already tried this nonsense in 2013. False flag all the way, Hillary's state department was in on it. Do you think Benghazi was just about AK and RPG sales to "rebels"? Dirty, dirty happenings.
-
Who is they?
-
I don't know who it is, but I don't believe for a second that Assad gassed the rebels.
Who do you think gassed the rebels? Witnesses claim fixed-wing aircraft bombed them. Assad has those, rebels don't.
I've heard a lot of people doubting it was Assad, but all credible sources claim it was.
???
-
Who is they?
McCain, Linsdsey Graham, Hillary, other neocons, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey... I suppose there are more trying to get the US directly involved in Syria.
-
Who do you think gassed the rebels? Witnesses claim fixed-wing aircraft bombed them. Assad has those, rebels don't.
I've heard a lot of people doubting it was Assad, but all credible sources claim it was.
???
I heard someone say Assad might not have much control over what his generals do. I hope Trump knows a lot more than I do.
-
Who do you think gassed the rebels? Witnesses claim fixed-wing aircraft bombed them. Assad has those, rebels don't.
I've heard a lot of people doubting it was Assad, but all credible sources claim it was.
???
I trust zero of what comes from Al Jazeera. There is plenty of background of them spreading false propaganda for the 'white helmets' in order to affect american sentiment and draw us into their civil war.
-
Who do you think gassed the rebels? Witnesses claim fixed-wing aircraft bombed them. Assad has those, rebels don't.
I've heard a lot of people doubting it was Assad, but all credible sources claim it was.
???
Lets assume for just a second that Assad did it, for whatever reason.
So What?
Less than 100 people died in the gassing, whoever did it. More children than that were killed by warlords in Africa last week. More women than that were sold into slavery last week. More than 400,000 Syrians have died in the last 6 years of civil war. Why are these special? Are they more dead because Sarin was used? Do any of the very real, compelling reasons NOT to dick around in ANOTHER mid-east civil war change? It's not like chemical weapons haven't been used already.
Articulate what about this particular bombing is worth the cost in US lives and money we will pay by reentering another conflict in this region. Or is it your belief that after 6 years and almost half a million dead 60 cruise missiles are going to be the tipping point that brings both sides to a negotiating table?
-
Articulate what about this particular bombing is worth the cost in US lives and money we will pay by reentering another conflict in this region. Or is it your belief that after 6 years and almost half a million dead 60 cruise missiles are going to be the tipping point that brings both sides to a negotiating table?
I wonder if the answer might be as simple as New Sheriff in Town.
-
I wonder if the answer might be as simple as New Sheriff in Town.
Great reason to needlessly escalate another decades long conflict that will end in American blood and treasure wasted on backwater, savage , camelfucking primitives.
-
Great reason to needlessly escalate another decades long conflict that will end in American blood and treasure wasted on backwater, savage , camelfucking primitives.
How do you really feel? ;)
-
Lets assume for just a second that Assad did it, for whatever reason.
So What?
Less than 100 people died in the gassing, whoever did it. More children than that were killed by warlords in Africa last week. More women than that were sold into slavery last week. More than 400,000 Syrians have died in the last 6 years of civil war. Why are these special? Are they more dead because Sarin was used? Do any of the very real, compelling reasons NOT to dick around in ANOTHER mid-east civil war change? It's not like chemical weapons haven't been used already.
Articulate what about this particular bombing is worth the cost in US lives and money we will pay by reentering another conflict in this region. Or is it your belief that after 6 years and almost half a million dead 60 cruise missiles are going to be the tipping point that brings both sides to a negotiating table?
100 casualties? Can we use this as justification for air strikes on Chicago after a good weekend?
-
100 casualties? Can we use this as justification for air strikes on Chicago after a good weekend?
What's our justification for NOT bombing Chicago?
-
The more killed by governments, the cheaper life becomes, and the easier it gets to kill even more.
I'm not sure who has the record, Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
-
Lets assume for just a second that Assad did it, for whatever reason.
So What?
Less than 100 people died in the gassing, whoever did it. More children than that were killed by warlords in Africa last week. More women than that were sold into slavery last week. More than 400,000 Syrians have died in the last 6 years of civil war. Why are these special? Are they more dead because Sarin was used? Do any of the very real, compelling reasons NOT to dick around in ANOTHER mid-east civil war change? It's not like chemical weapons haven't been used already.
Articulate what about this particular bombing is worth the cost in US lives and money we will pay by reentering another conflict in this region. Or is it your belief that after 6 years and almost half a million dead 60 cruise missiles are going to be the tipping point that brings both sides to a negotiating table?
You are, of course, aware that the mideast has been an unstable mess of dictators, warlords, terrorists and other human dregs now for decades. Plus, a very important ally of ours is in the middle of that cesspool of humanity: Israel. Like it or not, some places are more important to us than others.
We might not be able to play cop everywhere. But where we can, perhaps we should.
I don't think these missiles will bring anyone there together. But they do say to Assad, North Korea, China, et al, that we're no longer the uninvolved slackers we were under Obama. The US of A is back, .... . and all you dictators out there.....maybe you just don't have quite the free hand you did under Obama.
It's not just about Syria......
-
You are, of course, aware that the mideast has been an unstable mess of dictators, warlords, terrorists and other human dregs now for decades. Plus, a very important ally of ours is in the middle of that cesspool of humanity: Israel. Like it or not, some places are more important to us than others.
we might not be able to play cop everywhere. But where we can, perhaps we should.
I don't think these missiles will bring anyone there together. But they do say to Assad, North Korea, China, et al, that we're no longer the uninvolved slackers we were under Obama. The US of A is back, and all you dictators out there.....maybe you just don't have quite the free hand you did under Obama.
It's not just but Syria......
we can not afford, in money or in human life, to police the world
especially since the politicians and bureaucrats, once we're engaged, straight up will not ALLOW us to WIN such a war.
Do you know what the army spent millions on right before I got out?
Special training on transgender soldiers.
Including, why you're a bigot if you're a female who is grossed out when a "woman" in a group shower has a dick.
Our military is lead, from top to bottom, by *expletive deleted*ing scumbags. And that includes a very LARGE percentage of our current so-called "NCOs"
The only thing we "get" out of engaging in Syria is another quagmire that the US government won't allow us to win.
It's not our job to beat up a dictator.
And you know what?> Who gives a *expletive deleted*it if he used gas.
How many hundreds of thousands of people have been brutally slaughtered over there. What, we're all about a couple canisters of gas now?
It's hypocritical and stupid, and so is anyone supporting it.
Yeah let's get into a war with Syria that will likely escalate, get drawn to ground, and kill MORE Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians. BONUS: we can hopefully depose mean old assad and create a power vacuum for islamists to fill! Yay!
*expletive deleted*ing disgusting
Seriously, how many friggin times do we have to play this same goddamn game in the middle east before we realize we cannot bring peace to bloodthirsty savages?
-
we can not afford, in money or in human life, to police the world
especially since the politicians and bureaucrats, once we're engaged, straight up will not ALLOW us to WIN such a war.
Do you know what the army spent millions on right before I got out?
Special training on transgender soldiers.
Including, why you're a bigot if you're a female who is grossed out when a "woman" in a group shower has a dick.
Our military is lead, from top to bottom, by *expletive deleted*ing scumbags. And that includes a very LARGE percentage of our current so-called "NCOs"
The only thing we "get" out of engaging in Syria is another quagmire that the US government won't allow us to win.
It's not our job to beat up a dictator.
And you know what?> Who gives a *expletive deleted*it if he used gas.
How many hundreds of thousands of people have been brutally slaughtered over there. What, we're all about a couple canisters of gas now?
It's hypocritical and stupid, and so is anyone supporting it.
Yeah let's get into a war with Syria that will likely escalate, get drawn to ground, and kill MORE Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians. BONUS: we can hopefully depose mean old assad and create a power vacuum for islamists to fill! Yay!
*expletive deleted*ing disgusting
We can't afford not to. This world is governed by the aggressive use of force, and if we're not Chief Cop, China will become it, or Russia wiil. Do you like the idea of dancing to their tune?
The idea isn't to send troops, ships and planes everywhere. The idea is to keep those darklord dominated cesspool of humanity concerned that we will pay attention and do something, not reassure them all the time we'll just ignore them and let them play at will.
The world is run by people who disdain Mother Theresa, but memorized Machiavelli's maxims as babies.
-
We can't afford not to. This world is governed by the aggressive use of force, and if we're not Chief Cop, China will become it, or Russia wiil. Do you like the idea of dancing to their tune?
The idea isn't to send troops, ships and planes everywhere. The idea is to keep those darklord dominated cesspool of humanity concerned that we will pay attention and do something, not reassure them all the time we'll just ignore them and let them play at will.
The world is run by people who disdain Mother Theresa, but memorized Machiavelli's maxims as babies.
I like the idea of not being a superpower better than I like the idea of American troops dying for another bullshit conflict in the ME that we're not going to be allowed to win.
Hell it's already evidenced by how the strikes went. We could have obliterated most of his army and air force. Air force at least. What did we do? Just enough missiles to embolden him and show the rebels that we still got their back.
The rebels who are chock full of islamists.
A-stan in the 80s all over again. What do you think will happen to Syria once assad goes?
"The idea" may not be to send troops, ships and planes, but you're delusional if you think this is the end of the escalation.
Let someone else play world cop for a while. We are closing in on 20 TRILLION dollars of debt.
-
I like the idea of not being a superpower better than I like the idea of American troops dying for another bullshit conflict in the ME that we're not going to be allowed to win.
Hell it's already evidenced by how the strikes went. We could have obliterated most of his army and air force. Air force at least. What did we do? Just enough missiles to embolden him and show the rebels that we still got their back.
The rebels who are chock full of islamists.
A-stan in the 80s all over again. What do you think will happen to Syria once assad goes?
"The idea" may not be to send troops, ships and planes, but you're delusional if you think this is the end of the escalation.
Let someone else play world cop for a while. We are closing in on 20 TRILLION dollars of debt.
Delusional? Because we ALWAYS send in massive troops and take over entire countries after we send in 5 dozen Tomahawks?
I'd love to let another country play cop for awhile......once you can realistically assure me they won't put America under false arrest or use police brutality on us.....or Americans who are visiting other countries.....or our less strong allies.
-
Delusional? Because we ALWAYS send in massive troops and take over entire countries after we send in 5 dozen Tomahawks?
I'd love to let another country play cop for awhile......once you can realistically assure me they won't put America under false arrest or use police brutality on us.....or Americans who are visiting other countries.....or our less strong allies.
I'm not saying to dismantle our military. If other countries *expletive deleted*ck with us, we DEFEND ourselves. I.e. department of DEFENSE.
Yeah. Delusional. This wasn't enough to stop assad. It will escalate. nothing invigorates the defense industry more than a good old fashioned war.
You don't find it odd that we've been at a continuous state of having ground troops committed to active conflict for 16 years?
It's by design, friend
-
I'm not saying to dismantle our military. If other countries *expletive deleted*ck with us, we DEFEND ourselves. I.e. department of DEFENSE.
Yeah. Delusional. This wasn't enough to stop assad. It will escalate. nothing invigorates the defense industry more than a good old fashioned war.
You don't find it odd that we've been at a continuous state of having ground troops committed to active conflict for 16 years?
It's by design, friend
No, it's not design. We haven't been able to get in touch with the reality of war since WW2. We think there is "nice" war and "horrible" war. ALL WAR IS HORRIBLE. Those men who island hopped in the Pacific in WW2 knew it. Only the goal was honorable, not the means to obtain it.
And too many today can't hack it. Even Bush the Junior. I found that out when he started bombing A-stan with food pallets after those terrorists killed 3,000 Americans.
We tried it your way once before, after WW1. It didn't stop Hitler and it didn't stop Tojo from bombing Pear Harbor. And it also will not stop the next Hitlerojo from attacking us.
"Only the dead shall see the end of war." ------- old Greek Philosopher.
-
No, it's not design. We haven't been able to get in touch with the reality of war since WW2. We think there is "nice" war and "horrible" war. ALL WAR IS HORRIBLE. Those men who island hopped in the Pacific in WW2 knew it. Only the goal was honorable, not the means to obtain it.
And too many today can't hack it. Even Bush the Junior. I found that out when he started bombing A-stan with food pallets after those terrorists killed 3,000 Americans.
We tried it your way once before, after WW1. It didn't stop Hitler and it didn't stop Tojo from bombing Pear Harbor. And it also will not stop the next Hitlerojo from attacking us.
"Only the dead shall see the end of war." ------- old Greek Philosopher.
so, your opinion then, is even though we can't actually do what is required to win, we should anyways, because "HITLER"
sigh.
K
-
Question?
For those that think it was Assad's generals and not Assad himself that ordered the attack, why does it matter that much in the big scheme of things? Presumably, Assad is responsible for the actions of his underlings, right? So, no matter if he actually did it or not, he's ultimately the one who has to take the heat for it.
and, for the record, I don't really know much about what the hell is going on (No, I had no idea what Aleppo was until the stupid Johnson thing *because* I wasn't paying attention to the Syrian thing) but I think the US needs to get involved in another middle east conflict like we need a hole in our heads.
-
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
My view of the world is that it is just like a grade school play ground and the teacher(UN) is off around the corner sneaking a joint because they don't *expletive deleted*ing care as long as they get paid.
The bullies will kick the *expletive deleted*it out of the weaker kids and take their lunch money until they try that crap with someone that kicks the *expletive deleted*it out of them.
It is better to be known for fighting back effectively against the bullies, they'll leave you alone then.
Peace through superior fire power.
As to Syria though, I think we should have had a big pow wow with Putin and figured out a mutually agreeable way to settle the mess.
-
My view of the world is that it is just like a grade school play ground and the teacher(UN) is off around the corner sneaking a joint because they don't *expletive deleted*ing care as long as they get paid.
The bullies will kick the *expletive deleted*it out of the weaker kids and take their lunch money until they try that crap with someone that kicks the *expletive deleted*it out of them.
It is better to be known for fighting back effectively against the bullies, they'll leave you alone then.
Peace through superior fire power.
that analogy falls apart when you try to "take down" the bully by arming, funding, and training legions of smaller bullies, then once the big bully is taken down, you skedaddle.
I would love for you to answer my question. How many times are we going to go down this road before you recognize that we're not currently capable of doing it?
-
I agree with you that our feckless leaders don't have the gonads to do what needs to be done to do it right. And I'm all for letting a country settle their own internal differences any damn way they choose so long as they keep it inside their own borders.
On the other hand retreating to our own shores and letting things play out against our own interests and the interests of our allies won't end well either. We're seeing some of the end results of that type of thinking (thanks Obama) play out in the South China Sea with China.
Do we let the Norks develop the capability to nuke LA or HI or even South Korea or Japan?
Do we let the goatfuckers nuke Israel? Take over Egypt and shut down the Suez again?
-
I agree with you that our feckless leaders don't have the gonads to do what needs to be done to do it right. And I'm all for letting a country settle their own internal differences any damn way they choose so long as they keep it inside their own borders.
On the other hand retreating to our own shores and letting things play out against our own interests and the interests of our allies won't end well either. We're seeing some of the end results of that type of thinking (thanks Obama) play out in the South China Sea with China.
Do we let the Norks develop the capability to nuke LA or HI or even South Korea or Japan?
Do we let the goatfuckers nuke Israel? Take over Egypt and shut down the Suez again?
First of all, I don't think that this situation is at all like nork nukes or iran nuking Israel. Once nukes are involved, then sending troops is moot, because there wont be much left to send troops TO.
And you know what? maybe that's part of the answer. Yes. Sit and let the bloodthirsty secular savages massacre the bloodthirsty Islamic savages. If either faction gets to the point where they can do appreciable harm to US, or the capability to deliver a nuke to US, then we obliterate them entirely.
What interests do we have in Syria? Other than, of course, filling Raytheon's coffers with missile orders.
The point is, we don't have the will, or the ability, to bring peace to Syria. What we DO have the will and ability to do, is maybe remove assad and let ISIS grow.
-
Generally the shitshow in Syria would fall under the let 'em sort it out except they aren't keeping things inside their own borders.
-
Generally the shitshow in Syria would fall under the let 'em sort it out except they aren't keeping things inside their own borders.
no, they spilled over into other places because of our LAST round of bullshit halfhearted intervention.
Assad had the war nearly won until the mysterious influx of arms and money.
and you know what? if Syrians kill their neighbors, same thing. Bloodthirsty savages killing other savages.
-
I'm of the opinion that the so called "Arab Spring" had it's roots in Obama's State Department. He owns the current state of affairs over there. The tribal savages have been killing each other pretty much since the dawn of time and I agree that we need to stay the hell out of it. Russia and China won't though.
We can be energy independent of the rest of the world, particularly the ME. We need to be.
-
I'm of the opinion that the so called "Arab Spring" had it's roots in Obama's State Department. He owns the current state of affairs over there. The tribal savages have been killing each other pretty much since the dawn of time and I agree that we need to stay the hell out of it. Russia and China won't though.
We can be energy independent of the rest of the world, particularly the ME. We need to be.
We can do that without another middle eastern war
I'm glad u agree we should stay out of it
-
The only way to win in Syria, for starters, is to either fight Russia or get them to agree to let us fight Assad. I don't think the Russkies will agree to the latter, and we don't want the former.
-
Damn, Fitz is on fire today.
[popcorn]
Neocons always delude themselves into thinking "gee if we just topple one more dictator, and put the right people in charge, it will be successful and the world will love us"
-
Damn, Fitz is on fire today.
[popcorn]
Neocons always delude themselves into thinking "gee if we just topple one more dictator, and put the right people in charge, it will be successful and the world will love us"
I apologize.
Let's just say this frustration and bitterness has been building up for a while.
I'll leave you with a thought as to why i'm mad: how bad must it be for a 17 year NCO with all stellar NCOERs to leave the military in disgust?
-
I apologize.
Let's just say this frustration and bitterness has been building up for a while.
I'll leave you with a thought as to why i'm mad: how bad must it be for a 17 year NCO with all stellar NCOERs to leave the military in disgust?
No, I'm on total agreement with you.all.the.way.
I had no idea you left the Army?
-
I apologize.
Let's just say this frustration and bitterness has been building up for a while.
I'll leave you with a thought as to why i'm mad: how bad must it be for a 17 year NCO with all stellar NCOERs to leave the military in disgust?
A little bit worse than for a 12 year NCO with all stellar annual evals to leave the military in disgust =D
-
so, your opinion then, is even though we can't actually do what is required to win, we should anyways, because "HITLER"
sigh.
K
That really isn't at all what I said....or meant....but then, I fear anyone who would take what I said and go where you did, is beyond understanding.
Have a nice evening.
-
The other thing folks that aren't as familiar with governments and countries in the mid east can't seem to wrap their heads around is this:
I'll posit that Assad is a brutal dictator that denies his people fundamental rights, murders and imprisons them, and has used chemical weapons against civilians while enforcing his power. All that is true.
He's still better for Syrians than the "rebels" and the government they'll institute.
Even if Syria weren't a shitshow already, and even if Russia wasn't involved so heavily that we're going to end up in a shooting war with them, and even if there was a chance (there isn't) we could get the rebels in power without genocide....Even if ALL THAT......We're on the wrong side of this one.
-
"On the other hand, lil Kim ought to take notice."
✔
"The idea is to keep those darklord dominated cesspools of humanity concerned that we will pay attention and do something,"
✔
That's the simplistic, naive, deplorable way I look at it, regardless of who did what to whom with which. It was a carefully calculated move ready for when and where just the right situation came along.
MAGA
Terry
-
As one of the Vietnam generation (as well as an actual, boots on the ground Vietnam veteran), I'll just add another consideration -- warm bodies. When the U.S. first contemplated the invasion of Iraq, the then-Chief of the JCS told the administration that post-invasion we would need 300,000 pairs of boots on the ground to sustain the situation once we were in control. The administration fired him and decided it could be done with fewer than half that number.
What we have in the whole region now is a result of that decision.
The problem is that we didn't have 300,000 pairs of combat and combat support boots to throw into Iraq. And we have no way of ramping up to get that many because neither party has the gumption to reinstitute the draft. The millennial generation isn't interested. We have spent too many years teaching successive generations that there is no personal responsibility. Whatever the problem, it's always someone else's responsibility. (Which, of course, is why APS keeps Fistful around.) When I was in high school and college, the draft was there and it was simply accepted as a fact of life. When someone was actually drafted, there was no "Not my President!" grade moaning and kvetching, it was just a general sense of resignation ("Oh, well -- I almost dodged it.") That attitude of "It's not my responsibility" has become so deeply ingrained that neither party wants to risk the certain firestorm that would follow if we started up the draft again. As far as I know, the draft still exists on paper, but I'll bet most 18-year old male children (if there are any left who don't self-identify as Caitlyn Jenner or a leprechaun or a fir tree) don't even bother to register, and have no fear of being punished for that because they know they won't.
Having a draft card was so much a requirement in my day that when I was released from active service we were advised to have a copy of our DD-214 reduced to wallet size so we could carry that to show if we were asked for our draft card. I did that. Carrying that became so habitual that I still have it in my wallet today.
-
I still have my original draft card somewhere. Hey, it says right on it to keep it.
-
True. Not enough warm bodies to fullfill a neocon's dreams of world domination.
People won't accept a draft for the ME. American Citizens won't fight for that BS, NOTHING to win. There is a reason why the US Government has been increasingly reliant on mercenaries "contractors" and funding and arming terrorists "rebels" in an attempt to implement "foreign policy".
ISIS, eventhough being Islamic terrorists, are executing US foreign policy acting as an unwitting proxy army. They receive training and material support from key US allies. The war on terrror was and is a sham.
Assad "has to go" to further Israeli and Saudi interests. Saudi interests being a pipeline through Syria to Turkey, Israeli interests being bringing down an Iranian ally and furthering its own hegemony in the region. We want to further Saudi interests because their collaboration gives the petrodollar its value. We want to further israeli interests because... because... well I can't find any reasonable explanation for blindly supporting a religious zealot state.
-
True. Not enough warm bodies to fullfill a neocon's dreams of world domination.
People won't accept a draft for the ME. American Citizens won't fight for that BS, NOTHING to win. There is a reason why the US Government has been increasingly reliant on mercenaries "contractors" and funding and arming terrorists "rebels" in an attempt to implement "foreign policy".
ISIS, eventhough being Islamic terrorists, are executing US foreign policy acting as an unwitting proxy army. They receive training and material support from key US allies. The war on terrror was and is a sham.
Assad "has to go" to further Israeli and Saudi interests. Saudi interests being a pipeline through Syria to Turkey, Israeli interests being bringing down an Iranian ally and furthering its own hegemony in the region. We want to further Saudi interests because their collaboration gives the petrodollar its value. We want to further israeli interests because... because... well I can't find any reasonable explanation for blindly supporting a religious zealot state.
Well, I'm an foreign policy idiot and even I can answer that one.
Because that religious zealot state is one of the rare ones in the region that's half assed stable and doesn't hate us.
-
I'm neither an Israel expert, nor one of their most die-hard supporters. So please forgive me for asking, how is it a "religious zealot state"?
-
The millennial generation isn't interested. We have spent too many years teaching successive generations that there is no personal responsibility.
I'm of the opinion the Millennials got it right. When I was in boot, they harped on us being of the 1% who cared enough to serve. More fool us, I guess. Can you blame them for not giving a *expletive deleted*it about pointless wars we're not even trying to win? Why even bother?
*please forgive the gratuitious cropping of your quote, just wanted to address this point.
-
I'm neither an Israel expert, nor one of their most die-hard supporters. So please forgive me for asking, how is it a "religious zealot state"?
Yeah, I was a little confused about that as well, but decided to just not go there.
-
OK I'll take the bait.
So Israel is not about religious supremacy? The whole theme behind the creation of the state of Israel in that historically screwed up, hotspot part of the world is about fulfiling religious prophecy. Believe me there were far better places to create a new country. It is no where near a secular state as its flag so proudly shows. The patronage it offers extremist "settlers" speaks for itself.
And an ally? How is that? Explain to me how Israel's interests, expansion and region destabilizing effects align with that of the American people (PEOPLE, not neocon Government). As far as I can see, one of the main reasons "they hate us" is because of the actions the US Government takes in order to serve that one way relationship. What is gained from all that?
-
Again, not an Israel expert here. Please explain if I'm wrong, but I don't think religious prophecies are required for people to want to occupy their culture's home ground. Are you conflating ethnic/cultural Judaism with the religion?
From what I understand, there is a hard-line, religiously conservative element in Israeli politics, but it is not dominant. Then again, I don't know. Does the Israeli government require things like circumcision? I mean, what's the religious zealotry part?
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?
What were the other options? Where would you have set up a new country where there were no other people? And what reason for occupying a particular patch of land does one need? "My devine book says so" is just as good as "we were here first" or "the UN says it was okay". The original reason was "God commanded we kill everyone over there and occupy their land" so they did (mostly).
My understanding is that Jewish immigration back to present day Israel had been increasing since before 1900. I saw one source that said the area wasn't very heavily populated before that time, but someone else might have better figures. If that is where they want to be, then there they are. They have fought and spilled blood to stay there. Why is that still debated?
Religious zealotry is better defined by people who teach their children that those other people over there sacrifice children in religious rituals and drink their blood among other really silly stuff.
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?
Ah, so history is suspect because it's about TEH JOOS!!, then?
I'm fairly certain every historical work, not just the Bible and Jewish texts, locate the Jewish people in the areas they now occupy. The have been spread all over the West (and the Arab east!) since the time that they lived there. Further, many of the people now living in Israel immigrated from other Middle Eastern countries from which they were EXPELLED*. From that link: The first large-scale exoduses took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s, primarily from Iraq, Yemen and Libya. In these cases over 90% of the Jewish population left, despite the necessity of leaving their property behind.[4] Two hundred and sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1951, accounting for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded state
So, yes, no connection to that area or the middle east at all. Just a bunch of fake JOOS from Russia and Germany who were really just Russian and Germans, but pretended to be Jews because it obviously made their lives so much easier.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
-
Just glanced into this thread. Basically, I agree with Fitz. My only comment is that he is understating the matter. And not using enough profanity to accurately describe the current situation.
Syria is a minimum of a six way civil war with zero chance of a clean outcome. The United States is not functionally able to win a political war, and haven't since WW2 except for rare flukes or incredibly tiny enemies. We can defeat any actual army on the planet on the field of battle. Possibly all of them combined. But we have functionally lost nearly every war due to politics. Having the US involved in the Syrian civil war would be like sending a toddler to fix a running chainsaw with the throttle stuck open. Or sending a crippled kid with developmental disorders to play in the NFL.
So keep that in mind. Any significant war we get involved with, there's about a 90% chance we will lose it. Probably closer to 95%, but I don't want to sound demoralizing. We will spend billions, or hundreds of billions, or trillions, and ultimately have little to nothing to show for it. I'd welcome any counterexamples since Korea. Even a single counter example would be nice.
-
Just glanced into this thread. Basically, I agree with Fitz. My only comment is that he is understating the matter. And not using enough profanity to accurately describe the current situation.
Syria is a minimum of a six way civil war with zero chance of a clean outcome. The United States is not functionally able to win a political war, and haven't since WW2 except for rare flukes or incredibly tiny enemies. We can defeat any actual army on the planet on the field of battle. Possibly all of them combined. But we have functionally lost nearly every war due to politics. Having the US involved in the Syrian civil war would be like sending a toddler to fix a running chainsaw with the throttle stuck open. Or sending a crippled kid with developmental disorders to play in the NFL.
So keep that in mind. Any significant war we get involved with, there's about a 90% chance we will lose it. Probably closer to 95%, but I don't want to sound demoralizing. We will spend billions, or hundreds of billions, or trillions, and ultimately have little to nothing to show for it. I'd welcome any counterexamples since Korea. Even a single counter example would be nice.
We certainly have all the capabilities necessary to win a war, which is why it is such a difficult discussion.
What we don't have is the will or the perseverance as a people to do what IS necessary to win such a war. I'm not sure what will be necessary to change that, either.
I've been learning about the later Roman and the Byzantine period lately and learned that the native Romans effectively lost the ability to pursue warfare (moral aptitude, not physical) and outsourced it all to the Germanic tribes. It's eye opening, to say the least, to see a people "evolve" out of the ability to defend themselves.
-
We certainly have all the capabilities necessary to win a war, which is why it is such a difficult discussion.
What we don't have is the will or the perseverance as a people to do what IS necessary to win such a war. I'm not sure what will be necessary to change that, either.
I've been learning about the later Roman and the Byzantine period lately and learned that the native Romans effectively lost the ability to pursue warfare (moral aptitude, not physical) and outsourced it all to the Germanic tribes. It's eye opening, to say the least, to see a people "evolve" out of the ability to defend themselves.
I would add that part of the problem is we accept poor political definitions of what "Winning" is. We have to select from things like "regime change" and "implementing democracy". Easier war goals like "destroy everything" and "kill everyone" are frowned upon. I sometimes wonder how Iraq would have been different if W. Bush had just destroyed a bunch of stuff and pulled out after defeating Iraq's army in that first year. Hard to believe it would have been worse. It still would have been his fault, but better than a 10 year occupation.
-
The average US citizen hasn't been genuinely afraid for the continued existence of the US since WWII. It's hard to push the idea that we should do the kind of things you have to do to win a war when no one* really cares or is invested in the outcome.
*or not enough people anyway.
-
I'm of the opinion the Millennials got it right. When I was in boot, they harped on us being of the 1% who cared enough to serve. More fool us, I guess. Can you blame them for not giving a *expletive deleted*it about pointless wars we're not even trying to win? Why even bother?
*please forgive the gratuitious cropping of your quote, just wanted to address this point.
I concur with you. And that Millennials got it right. Maybe for the wrong reasons. But most of the best soldiers I knew, regardless of rank, have come to the same conclusion and got the hell out. Or are planning on putting in their 20 and getting out. We fight war for domestic politics or emotions rather than logic or reason. Within a couple years, no one cared about Afghanistan. Iraq, aside from the initial propaganda campaign of now questionable accuracy and the fun of blowing up couple thousand bucks worth of former Soviet gear with millions of bucks worth of 21st century munitions, was forgotten even quicker.
We could have achieved realistic goals in weeks or months. Kill everyone we deem bad and leave. The semi stated mission goal of turn Iraq and Afghanistan into modern civilized democracies was impossible. We're still in both countries and we're still failing at that goal. The last mostly successful war was our intervention into the Balkans. Shockingly, that went rather well. Goal was to physically separate parties from murdering each other, and bomb anyone who disagreed. On the semi near term (ie decades rather than centuries), it was achieveable and we relatively were successful at it. We killed enough people for the enemy forces to agree it wasn't worth continuing, and suckered plenty of other parties to helping out of their own free will. We're still there, but it's a small enough force to essentially be training rotations.
I would add that part of the problem is we accept poor political definitions of what "Winning" is. We have to select from things like "regime change" and "implementing democracy". Easier war goals like "destroy everything" and "kill everyone" are frowned upon. I sometimes wonder how Iraq would have been different if W. Bush had just destroyed a bunch of stuff and pulled out after defeating Iraq's army in that first year. Hard to believe it would have been worse. It still would have been his fault, but better than a 10 year occupation.
It is possible to have realistic war goals of "kill people until they give up". See Balkans. In public we lied appropriately and called it "stabilization" or whatever. But we killed Serbs until they agreed to stay in their own borders. It was successful. Kuwait war? Killed people until Saddam gave up. Also successful.
Admittedly, we have lots of little operations that can be successful. Solely because no one cared about them.
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?
As makattak pointed out, one need not be a Torah-thumper (or even a theist) to acknowledge that present-day Israel (give or take a few acres) was the site of a Jewish state, in ancient times. Also, if you want to quibble about genetics - well, I don't. That's why I talked more of culture than ethnicity. Whatever the derivation of European Jewry, the culture they're a part of regards that parcel of ground as their homeland. And again, my point was not that they do or do not deserve to live there. I'm just skeptical of your claim that Zionism is (necessarily) "religious zealotry."
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
Conflating religion and culture... that is confusing. I would argue that most people of the Jewish persuasion are of a european-east european descent, not middle eastern. Their relation to the actual soil (or rocks) being disputed is based more on religious text than actually having a grandfather or great grandfather or great great grandfather or great great great grandfather or grandmother coming from there. How far back can you go and still have a reasonable claim to a piece of land?
I've had another thought.
Is there some area of the world NOT known for a tumultuous past?
Was Australia offered to them?
-
^^^Madagascar was, but by the Reich government. See: The Madagascar Plan.
-
Makattak I'm not contesting the history of who lived where at some point in time, or calling anyone "JOOS" whatever you are hinting at with that.
I do say that using ancient history as justification for claiming something you have been alien to for centuries is capricious at best, and when it comes to following religious text into violence, then yes that makes you a zealot.
If history has anything to tell, it's that whenever that part of the world gets claimed by someone, bloodshed follows. Ignoring that fact and forcefully inserting yourself into that very area because of religion, culture, ethnicity, tradition or what have you makes you a zealot.
FWIW there was the option of creating a Jewish state in Uganda.
-
Religious zealotry is required to setup your new country in a very specific part of the world known for its tumultuous past where there a equally zealous people that want to kill you. A reasonable human being would seek safety and fertile land over a never ending warzone, there were other options. Citing the reason of "my divine book says so" to occupy a very specific geographic region and displace or impose a government over others seems to fit in as well.
I do say that using ancient history as justification for claiming something you have been alien to for centuries is capricious at best, and when it comes to following religious text into violence, then yes that makes you a zealot.
Ah, so now it's not the divine book, it's ancient history.
So, what we're seeing is there is a long litany of reasons for the Jewish people to feel a connection to their historical homeland, hmm? Because you just seem to keep adding reasons they might want to be there and dismissing them as "capricious" or "religious zealotry".
Instead, I'm seeing a list of reasons the Jewish people might desire to live there.
Incidentally, Israel was a sparsely populated area not really all that important until the Jews returned there. Population of Jerusalem in 1905 (near the beginning of the return to Israel): 32,400
Population in 1932: 62,578. 2/3 of the increase was Jewish people returning to their "divine book's" homeland.
Population in 1944: 157,000 Again, the VAST MAJORITY of the increase (over 2/3) was Jews returning to their "ancient" homeland.
All this was BEFORE the creation of the state of Israel.
You can mock them for their historic, cultural, and religious ties to Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple mount, but it's pretty clear the Jewish people are connected to their land.
Incidentally, Uganda as an alternate site? Well, it's a good thing they wouldn't be confronted by murderous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sudanese_Civil_War) Muslim neighbors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur) there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2010_Kampala_attacks). No history of violence and turmoil at all.
-
People have the right to live wherever they want so long as they have the ability to defend their piece of land.
-
People have the right to live wherever they want so long as they have the ability to defend their piece of land.
Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?
-
Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?
Yes, if the US government fails in its duties.
-
Does that include Muslims moving into US cities and setting up their own governments?
Yes, if the US government fails in its duties.
Well there are a lot of people who believe they have already done that. So can the states and/or cities that believe so start leaving and telling the feds to *expletive deleted*ck off?
-
Well there are a lot of people who believe they have already done that. So can the states and/or cities that believe so start leaving and telling the feds to *expletive deleted*ck off?
The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do.
They can not do that until they can.
-
Makattak you accused me of trying to deny history because "JOOS". Now you are taking issue with me for mentioning history.
The numbers and dates you show are not indicative of a native population growing in size organically over time. So, a group of people consider a certain patch of land they "theirs" for WHATEVER reason. However they haven't occupied that land for centuries. They flood it, no matter what violence is a result of their choice? That is very extreme. If religion plays a main role in that choice that indicates religious zealotry. If a person allows religion to lead him to violence I say that person is a zealot.
-
(1)Makattak you accused me of trying to deny history because "JOOS". Now you are taking issue with me for mentioning history.
(2)The numbers and dates you show are not indicative of a native population growing in size organically over time. So, a group of people consider a certain patch of land they "theirs" for WHATEVER reason. However they haven't occupied that land for centuries. (3) They flood it, no matter what violence is a result of their choice? That is very extreme. If religion plays a main role in that choice that indicates religious zealotry. If a person allows religion to lead him to violence I say that person is a zealot.
(1)No, the point I was making is that there are reasons beyond religious zealotry that can connect a people (and DOES connect this specific people) to a historic homeland.
(2) And you completely miss the point. My point was NO ONE LIVED THERE. 32,000 people in JERUSALEM in 1905 means it wasn't important to anyone. It only became important because the Jews returned.
(3) No, they are only responsible for the violence that they initiate. They are not responsible for people getting angry that they have a homeland after purchasing the land.
Or were the Cherokee just asking for it when they repurchased their ancestral homelands in North Carolina and moved back there?
-
(1)No, the point I was making is that there are reasons beyond religious zealotry that can connect a people (and DOES connect this specific people) to a historic homeland.
(2) And you completely miss the point. My point was NO ONE LIVED THERE. 32,000 people in JERUSALEM in 1905 means it wasn't important to anyone. It only became important because the Jews returned.
(3) No, they are only responsible for the violence that they initiate. They are not responsible for people getting angry that they have a homeland after purchasing the land.
The bolded point doesn't really follow. Pretending it wasn't important to anyone because no one lived there is disingenuous. Lot's of places in the world are important to folks without a huge population. There is the additional "It was our, even if we weren't using it!!" issue. I doubt the US would be very calm is La Raza just moved into the Mojave and said it was theirs because Americans didn't live there.
Also, pretending that Israel purchased the land freely is glossing over quite a bit. It was more like an eminent domain grab at the national scale.
That said, Mak is right. They've got it. the land is there's until they can't hold it anymore. Sentimentality aside, that's how the world works on the Nation Scale, and has for millennium. The right of conquest is a very real thing. Ask Putin.
-
Also, pretending that Israel purchased the land freely is glossing over quite a bit. It was more like an eminent domain grab at the national scale.
ISRAEL didn't purchase the land because Israel didn't exist.
You notice those numbers quickly increasing from 1905 to 1948? Those were Jews who BOUGHT the land and moved back to Israel.
The didn't use "eminent domain" to grab up the land because they had no power. The Ottomans (in 1905) wouldn't be bowing to the great Jewish Overlord conspiracy and, later, the British had their own animosity towards Jews as well.
The fact that (1) a lot of Jews had already begun congregating in Israel BEFORE the Nazi holocaust, and the (2) the whole world was ashamed that they had ignored it for so long, meant that (3) when they were looking for a place to try to ensure "Never Again" actually meant "never again", they saw:
"Hey, here's a place the Jews all claim as their home AND a lot of Jews have already moved back there. Let's use that place."
It's disingenuous to claim that there were no Jews in Israel prior to 1948 and then the world just decided to kick millions of Arabs out and give it to the Jews. The "land grab" you claim was taking AUTHORITY for the land that is now Israel away from THE BRITISH and giving that authority to the Jews who were the majority in that area. (Look at the population numbers.)
That the Muslims hate the Jews and want them all dead would be the case WHEREVER the Jews live.
Unless, as I suggested, they were offered Australia. Of course, I have a feeling that Indonesia would suddenly not be as friendly to Australia were that to happen.