Israel to Expand Settlements in West Bank

#52
#52
I would think Iran using asymmetrical proxies to attack their enemies constitutes a legitimate gripe for the US. They may not invade, but they tacitly support and arm terrorist organizations to do their bidding.

N. Korea having nukes wouldn't be near as big an issue if they didn't publicly issue threats to use them on a consistent basis.

Iraq had WMDs in the past and showed a willingness to use them.

Afghanistan harbored terrorist organizations than attacked US soil.

...we can argue all day whether any of that warrants a conflict we should be involved in, but let's not sit here and and call any of these situations benign or we shouldn't conduct some action within our current capacity.
 
#53
#53
rjd970 said:
I would think Iran using asymmetrical proxies to attack their enemies constitutes a legitimate gripe for the US. They may not invade, but they tacitly support and arm terrorist organizations to do their bidding.
Click to expand...

How does this constitute a legitimate gripe? We have been using proxies to do our bidding for us, in places we have no business intervening, for the greater part of the past century. It might constitute a gripe; a hypocritical gripe, that is.

rjd970 said:
N. Korea having nukes wouldn't be near as big an issue if they didn't publicly issue threats to use them on a consistent basis.
Click to expand...

I would threaten to use them if America, which has shown an prevalence to invade many countries, were my enemy.

rjd970 said:
Iraq had WMDs in the past and showed a willingness to use them.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Reagan.

rjd970 said:
Afghanistan harbored terrorist organizations than attacked US soil.
Click to expand...

We harbored a military that has killed more civilians than al Qaeda could have ever dreamed of.

rjd970 said:
...we can argue all day whether any of that warrants a conflict we should be involved in, but let's not sit here and and call any of these situations benign or we shouldn't conduct some action within our current capacity.
Click to expand...

Let's not act like we have any moral high-ground or authority for the vast majority of the our interventions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#54
#54
I hate conflict just as much as the next guy, but this pacifist attitude and compitulation to demands would only bring on more or make situations worse. At this point in world history conflict is inevitable. Sometimes ripping off the band aid is preferable to drawing things out longer.
 
#55
#55
rjd970 said:
I hate conflict just as much as the next guy, but this pacifist attitude and compitulation to demands would only bring on more or make situations worse. At this point in world history conflict is inevitable. Sometimes ripping off the band aid is preferable to drawing things out longer.
Click to expand...

If you hated conflict, then you would probably actually be open to attempting negotiation; the fact is that as much as America (and many Americans) hate conflict, it loves power more. America's continual quest for world dominance, hegemony, and power is what makes America the most sought after target; yet, that is the one thing America refuses to give up.
 
#57
#57
therealUT said:
If you hated conflict, then you would probably actually be open to attempting negotiation; the fact is that as much as America (and many Americans) hate conflict, it loves power more. America's continual quest for world dominance, hegemony, and power is what makes America the most sought after target; yet, that is the one thing America refuses to give up.
Click to expand...

Actually it is the opposite. I'm all for negotiation where warranted and sometimes conflict is the best approach to stopping greater conflict down the road. War is a nasty and unfortunate reality we live with right now. Getting it over with as quickly as possible saves lives on both sides. We can discuss the merits of how we waged the afghan war for another time, but the decision to go in like we did was absolutely the right call.

Iraq was a disasterous mistake I disagree with. Other option were on the table that were better. Afghanistan was going to be conflict from the beginning. It needed to be said that attacks On US soil will not be tolerated. Negotiating would have just made the statement people could get away with it with no consequences. Even if the Taliban had handed over bin laden there was no consequence to stop them from doing it again.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
 
#58
#58
rjd970 said:
Actually it is the opposite. I'm all for negotiation where warranted and sometimes conflict is the best approach to stopping greater conflict down the road. War is a nasty and unfortunate reality we live with right now. Getting it over with as quickly as possible saves lives on both sides. We can discuss the merits of how we waged the afghan war for another time, but the decision to go in like we did was absolutely the right call.

Iraq was a disasterous mistake I disagree with. Other option were on the table that were better. Afghanistan was going to be conflict from the beginning. It needed to be said that attacks On US soil will not be tolerated. Negotiating would have just made the statement people could get away with it with no consequences. Even if the Taliban had handed over bin laden there was no consequence to stop them from doing it again.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Click to expand...
nuclear bombs where invented for a reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
possumslayer said:
nuclear bombs where invented for a reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah, to kill thousands or millions of people at once. We really need something like that in the world don't we?

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Robert Oppenheimer
 
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
I hate conflict just as much as the next guy, but this pacifist attitude and compitulation to demands would only bring on more or make situations worse. At this point in world history conflict is inevitable. Sometimes ripping off the band aid is preferable to drawing things out longer.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, it's since man started walking the earth conflict is inevitable. It's all fine and dandy to be a pacifist, the only problem is when you are the only one in the room.

Otherwise you need people to take care of the agressors for you.
 
#61
#61
hog88 said:
You are wrong, it's since man started walking the earth conflict is inevitable. It's all fine and dandy to be a pacifist, the only problem is when you are the only one in the room.

Otherwise you need people to take care of the agressors for you.
Click to expand...

Who is a pacifist? I have stated time and again that one may resort to the use of force to defend themselves. That is not pacifism. We disagree on what self-defense entails: you think it allows for expeditionary invasions of other sovereign nations; I think it allows for defending one's borders against an armed invasion and defending one's self in a situation where it is kill-or-be-killed.

How many pacifists do you know that say that citizens ought to be armed? That individuals on planes, ought not to sit by idly while someone hijacks said plane with a box-cutter?

As much as individuals want to build up the threat from al Qaeda in the manner that would fit right into a Tom Clancy novel, the fact is that they have carried out their operations, in the U.S., in a very unsophisticated manner: fertilizer bombs, box-cutters, and an incredibly ****ty shoe-bomb. These are all things that a vigilant citizenry can pretty much take care of and prevent.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
Who is a pacifist? I have stated time and again that one may resort to the use of force to defend themselves. That is not pacifism. We disagree on what self-defense entails: you think it allows for expeditionary invasions of other sovereign nations; I think it allows for defending one's borders against an armed invasion and defending one's self in a situation where it is kill-or-be-killed.

How many pacifists do you know that say that citizens ought to be armed? That individuals on planes, ought not to sit by idly while someone hijacks said plane with a box-cutter?

As much as individuals want to build up the threat from al Qaeda in the manner that would fit right into a Tom Clancy novel, the fact is that they have carried out their operations, in the U.S., in a very unsophisticated manner: fertilizer bombs, box-cutters, and an incredibly ****ty shoe-bomb. These are all things that a vigilant citizenry can pretty much take care of and prevent.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling you a pacifist, you have served with honor. If I had to catagorize you (hard to do) I would say you are more of an idealist.

The problem is it is human nature to seek power, always has been always will be. IMHO this quest to seek power over others is the root of most all wars heck it's the root of all religions. That is just a part of human nature.

I had a History Prof once break it down kinda simple but in reality true. Wars are started and fought by men, why PU$$Y, those with power and riches get the ^&%. In the most basic form it's true.

Put the women in charge and we end this discussion.....
 
#63
#63
hog88 said:
I'm not calling you a pacifist, you have served with honor. If I had to catagorize you (hard to do) I would say you are more of an idealist.
Click to expand...

Definitely an idealist (which, is a rather depressing thing to be).

hog88 said:
The problem is it is human nature to seek power, always has been always will be. IMHO this quest to seek power over others is the root of most all wars heck it's the root of all religions. That is just a part of human nature.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is not going to change and that it is somewhat futile to attempt to change it (which is why I am not a Marxist because to be one you have to believe you can make every person a better person; to be a Smithian you only have to believe that you can exploit the lust for power and greed of others to the benefit of all).

hog88 said:
I had a History Prof once break it down kinda simple but in reality true. Wars are started and fought by men, why PU$$Y, those with power and riches get the ^&%. In the most basic form it's true.
Click to expand...

This is why Orwell's quote about jingoism is so fantastic. I think American foreign policy would be much more prudent without an all-volunteer force and a draft that allowed for no exceptions. Congressmen would think twice about sending troops to war if they thought there was a good chance their child would be selected.

hog88 said:
Put the women in charge and we end this discussion.....
Click to expand...

Too bad we gave billions to the ISI and then sent Benazir Bhutto back to Pakistan so that the ISI could kill her.
 
#66
#66
rjd970 said:
I would think Iran using asymmetrical proxies to attack their enemies constitutes a legitimate gripe for the US. They may not invade, but they tacitly support and arm terrorist organizations to do their bidding.

N. Korea having nukes wouldn't be near as big an issue if they didn't publicly issue threats to use them on a consistent basis.

Iraq had WMDs in the past and showed a willingness to use them.

Afghanistan harbored terrorist organizations than attacked US soil.

...we can argue all day whether any of that warrants a conflict we should be involved in, but let's not sit here and and call any of these situations benign or we shouldn't conduct some action within our current capacity.
Click to expand...


As it stands now it appears our own administration is holding closed door meetings regularly at the white house with CAIR which is a front for Hamas and with MAS which is the American front group for the Muslim Brotherhood.







therealUT said:
If you hated conflict, then you would probably actually be open to attempting negotiation; the fact is that as much as America (and many Americans) hate conflict, it loves power more. America's continual quest for world dominance, hegemony, and power is what makes America the most sought after target; yet, that is the one thing America refuses to give up.
Click to expand...

Negotiations are pretty much useless when one side never keeps the agreement.
 
#67
#67
orangeslice13 said:
Israel doesn't admit to having them either.
(Or at least didn't, I haven't checked in a while )
Click to expand...

Israel has nukes, and it is one of the reason Iran is so hellbent on getting them.

How is it dumb to say that Israel brings a lot of the hate on themselves? I really hate that people tie religion in on this. Saddly enough, buddying up for israel because they are Jews is not the right thing to do. Palestinians still live in refugee camps.... Israel is a total douche for continually up rooting these people and not keeping their word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
DjCrenshaw said:
Israel has nukes, and it is one of the reason Iran is so hellbent on getting them.

How is it dumb to say that Israel brings a lot of the hate on themselves? I really hate that people tie religion in on this. Saddly enough, buddying up for israel because they are Jews is not the right thing to do. Palestinians still live in refugee camps.... Israel is a total douche for continually up rooting these people and not keeping their word.
Click to expand...
Where do these poor people come from?
There must be somewhere they can go?
 
#69
#69
orangeslice13 said:
Where do these poor people come from?
There must be somewhere they can go?
Click to expand...

Alot of them still live in dessert camps. 2 generations have been displaced. Furthermore, the road map to peace called for no new jewish settlements. It's not very diplomatic, and it will cause a lot harm to an already fragile relationship.
 
#70
#70
DjCrenshaw said:
Alot of them still live in dessert camps. 2 generations have been displaced. Furthermore, the road map to peace called for no new jewish settlements. It's not very diplomatic, and it will cause a lot harm to an already fragile relationship.
Click to expand...

But where do they come from?
Why are they there?
Is it possible they are actually leftover from a war (not started by Israel ) and are being used for political purposes?
Why can't they go to their home countries (the ones who attacked Israel and lost territory )?
Other than their home countries not allowing it.
 
#71
#71
orangeslice13 said:
But where do they come from?
Why are they there?
Is it possible they are actually leftover from a war (not started by Israel ) and are being used for political purposes?
Why can't they go to their home countries (the ones who attacked Israel and lost territory )?
Other than their home countries not allowing it.
Click to expand...

The palestinians that were displaced to begin with?
 
#73
#73
DjCrenshaw said:
The palestinians that were displaced to begin with?
Click to expand...

Then they should have left to their home countries when territory was lost.
if we ever lost Chattanooga to Mexico you would find me in Kentucky. Not sitting here 2 generation's later in a tent
 
#74
#74
orangeslice13 said:
Then they should have left to their home countries when territory was lost.
if we ever lost Chattanooga to Mexico you would find me in Kentucky. Not sitting here 2 generation's later in a tent
Click to expand...

So you would just simply pack up and leave the land which your family has owned for generations, the country where your from, where your friends and family all live without question?
 
#75
#75
Burhead said:
So you would just simply pack up and leave the land which your family has owned for generations, the country where your from, where your friends and family all live without question?
Click to expand...

It was a war. All of that was lost by no fault of theirs. If it happened to me here would I seek a better live in the part of my country that survived?
He11 yes I would leave. Those who stayed behind deserve what they get.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top