3 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Fine use Biden then. How responsible are you for Biden's actions? How about your children 20 years from now? Enough to warrant starving them to death for drone strikes he called?

Let's look at the difference.  Uniformed military.  Military not hidden in civilian centers.  Didn't kill/rape/take and abuse hostages...

 

But if any President ordered such things, then retribution and or a declaration of war against the country would be warranted.  And I would fully expect that whomever prosecuted the war would do so to its maximum effect.

5 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Maybe, it’s a war zone, so who knows?

We do know they have slowed, stopped and fired missiles at a humanitarian aid convoy. Starved.

Intentionally killed civilians they knew weren’t Hamas? Probably.

Dismissed 

conjecture

5 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

That's what you said last week, before they bombed Jose Andres' crew. You guys are trying hard to conflate some "extra deaths due to urban conflict", with the systematic displacement, starvation and negation of health services to a trapped civilian populace made up primarily of minors.  At this point in the conflict that is blocking the sun with your hand.

I was talking about the last couple days when more aid went in than at any time since the conflict started. 
 

Reading the news is helpful. 

13 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

More people need to get this. 

The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy, not to claim some self righteous nonsense. Hamas thinks they are righteous too. 

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy, not to claim some self righteous nonsense. Hamas thinks they are righteous too. 

So nuke 'em then. Obviously there are rules to war, Geneva Convention and all that but even ancient history two sides would take a day off and pick up the dead. You guys are going full Ghengis Khan about siege warfare of a people who can't flee, or surrender on their own or fight back.

Whoops

 

Hamas tells negotiators it doesn’t have 40 Israeli hostages needed for first round of ceasefire

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/middleeast/hamas-israel-hostages-ceasefire-talks-intl/index.html

Just now, DaEagles4Life said:

Whoops

 

Hamas tells negotiators it doesn’t have 40 Israeli hostages needed for first round of ceasefire

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/middleeast/hamas-israel-hostages-ceasefire-talks-intl/index.html

Hamas genocided the hostages  

 

 

20 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

That was a fantastic episode.

Still weird to me that his wife in Curb is actually married to RFK Jr

1 hour ago, paco said:

Hamas genocided the hostages  

4 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

So nuke 'em then. Obviously there are rules to war, Geneva Convention and all that but even ancient history two sides would take a day off and pick up the dead. You guys are going full Ghengis Khan about siege warfare of a people who can't flee, or surrender on their own or fight back.

Which was done so you could burn the bodies and not have a disease outbreak…nothing to do with any mutual regard. I mean they raped and pillaged man, you gotta get over this naive nonsense. Its intentionally stupid

Hamas is the only party with none of this regard, which is why you cant leave this conflict with them still intact. 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Which was done so you could burn the bodies and not have a disease outbreak…nothing to do with any mutual regard. I mean they raped and pillaged man, you gotta get over this naive nonsense. Its intentionally stupid

Hamas is the only party with none of this regard, which is why you cant leave this conflict with them still intact. 

So why have we not used a nuclear weapon since WWII? We’ve been in a few wars, why didn’t we use our best weapons?

Biden is ready to support hamas now.

On 4/9/2024 at 6:33 PM, dawkins4prez said:

Fine use Biden then. How responsible are you for Biden's actions? How about your children 20 years from now? Enough to warrant starving them to death for drone strikes he called?

Can we apply this logic to affirmative action?

On 4/10/2024 at 5:02 PM, MidMoFo said:

So why have we not used a nuclear weapon since WWII? We’ve been in a few wars, why didn’t we use our best weapons?

Local conditions. But more so that we werent even quote sure what those nukes were going to do

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Local conditions. But more so that we werent even quote sure what those nukes were going to do

Now THAT is naive nonsense and intentionally stupid.

We both know the US military operates under codes of ethics and they don’t include the slaughter of innocent civilians. Those lines are drawn in pencil, and are moved when the situation calls for it. 
 

We didn’t hold back our nuclear arsenal because of F-king weather conditions or because we didn’t know what would happen. We didn’t nuke Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because we knew it was ethically wrong for the objective in the eyes of the rest of the world.

8 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Now THAT is naive nonsense and intentionally stupid.

We both know the US military operates under codes of ethics and they don’t include the slaughter of innocent civilians. Those lines are drawn in pencil, and are moved when the situation calls for it. 
 

We didn’t hold back our nuclear arsenal because of F-king weather conditions or because we didn’t know what would happen. We didn’t nuke Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because we knew it was ethically wrong for the objective in the eyes of the rest of the world.

No we held back because of MAD which didnt apply in ww2

8 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

No we held back because of MAD which didnt apply in ww2

Nope. None of those countries we’ve been in conflict with had nuclear weapons when we were in conflict, MAD does not apply.

The effects of a nuclear attack are devastating and long-lasting. If the stated goal of a war or incursion is to liberate* a people from an authoritarian government, or even if the goal is one of relieving the local government of resources (i.e. oil), then using a nuclear weapon would be counter to that goal. 

It's a disingenuous argument on its face.

 

* stated goal, I'm not getting into the complexities of the motivations behind the various wars in the middle east and elsewhere that we have engaged in

If the stated goal of a war or incursion is to liberate the people from an authoritarian government…. Um, gee… like say Hamas… it’s also counterproductive to kill them all. Right?

5 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

If the stated goal of a war or incursion is to liberate the people from an authoritarian government…. Um, gee… like say Hamas… it’s also counterproductive to kill them all. Right?

The goal of Israel's incursion into Gaza is not to liberate Gazans.

It's to secure Israel.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The goal of Israel's incursion into Gaza is not to liberate Gazans.

It's to secure Israel.

Obviously, the primary goal is for Israeli security. But destroying Hamas would liberate the Palestinian people from an oppressive regime, so it's a nice secondary benefit.

Of course, most of the Palestinians don't want to get rid of Hamas and be liberated, which is an added complication we apparently can't talk about...

But, I was reliably told this was a genocide with rampant war crimes...

 

If Iran directly (not through Hamas or Hezbollah) attacks Israel...it's going to be a full scale war. I can't imagine the Israelis will hold back from responding, 

 

29 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Obviously, the primary goal is for Israeli security. But destroying Hamas would liberate the Palestinian people from an oppressive regime, so it's a nice secondary benefit.

Of course, most of the Palestinians don't want to get rid of Hamas and be liberated, which is an added complication we apparently can't talk about...

liberating the Palestinian people is at best a happy consequence of Israel's war. 

I don't believe it to be in any way a goal of Netanyahu.

this is a difficult war to approach from a moral standpoint, insofar as how much morality plays in to such things.

because on one side you have a state gov't that was put into power by a people almost 20 years ago - in local terms that's probably a generation given the living conditions - that is operating as a terrorist regime with no regard for the local population excepting how that population can be used as a propaganda tool against "the west" and Israel. this state gov't launched a surprise attack on civilians to kick this hornet's nest open, and has total culpability for everything that's ensued.

but on the other side you have a corrupt gov't headed by one of the most corrupt politicians of our time, who may well have not only welcomed this war but may have even devised the conditions under which Hamas was able to conduct the Oct 7th attacks, handing Netanyahu casus belli to do what he's long wanted to do: conduct a war in a manner that brutalizes Gaza, expands Israeli controlled territory (with settlements already in progress), and ensures that any possibility of a resolution (because that's not in his party's interest) is buried for another generation. 

this after a period of time where Gaza has spent decades getting the screws tightened on them, increasingly isolated, with very little effort from the Israeli government to mend relations. 

so neither of these state actors are "good guys". Hamas is absolutely a terrorist organization, and Israel has every right to seek and destroy with extreme prejudice. But Israel is also hardly blameless, and even if Hamas never was put into power the people of Gaza have legitimate grievances. 

I've largely stayed out of this thread because I cannot in good conscious support Israel without reservation - even as I firmly support them relative to Hamas & Gaza - in how they've conducted themselves at least in my lifetime, even as I recognize their right to exist AND their right to defend themselves against Hamas. 

and I'll go ahead and do a "I have black friends too" when I say that most of my Jewish friends broadly agree with me. (my closest friends are Ashkenazi Jews whose families escaped persecution following WWII, many of whom have taken advantage of the birthright trip)