|
Post by ๐พ Molly ๐พ on Apr 22, 2024 14:20:18 GMT
That does not follow.ย We give money to NATO and we have troops in Europe, we give money to Ukraine, we have troops in Japan, and we have troops in South Korea.ย But that does not give us a right to interfere in the internal affairs of European countries, Ukraine, Japan, or South Korea. Jews are born to be pushed around by everyone else, in some people's minds.
We aren't supposed to defend our lives or decide how to defend our lives or decide which leaders to choose.
We're supposed to die and to get kicked out of places.
This attitude towards Jews has gone on for thousands of years.
Quit playing the victim. Israel can do what it wants - as long as the US and our taxpayer money can stay out of it, too.
|
|
|
Post by ๐พ Molly ๐พ on Apr 22, 2024 14:20:53 GMT
Perhaps we did at one time, but at this point, when Israel decides to go rogue, they are more harmful to the US than beneficial. If you want the US to stay out of Israelโs affairs, then we should stay all the way out of it, include funding. You want your cake and to eat it too. when Israel decides to go rogue, they are more harmful to the US than beneficial.
Rubbish.ย Israel's destruction of Hamas is beneficial to the U.S., since Hamas consists of "enemies of the human race", as Thomas Jefferson referred to those 18th century Islamic terrorists, the Barbary Pirates. I wasnโt talking about Hamas. I was talking about continued escalation with Iran.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Apr 22, 2024 14:21:41 GMT
Perhaps we did at one time, but at this point, when Israel decides to go rogue, they are more harmful to the US than beneficial. If you want the US to stay out of Israelโs affairs, then we should stay all the way out of it, include funding. You want your cake and to eat it too. when Israel decides to go rogue, they are more harmful to the US than beneficial.
Rubbish. Israel's destruction of Hamas is beneficial to the U.S., since Hamas consists of "enemies of the human race", as Thomas Jefferson referred to those 18th century Islamic terrorists, the Barbary Pirates. Hamas is in Germany and in other places.
Their stated goal is a Caliphate for the entire world to live as Muslims.
They will kill whoever needs to be killed to make this happen, even Muslims.
It doesn't mean that they'll get their Caliphate but it means a lot of blood while they try for it.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 22, 2024 14:23:36 GMT
This war is going to cost Israel heavily with allies outside of the USA....and to top it off, Hamas is not going anywhere and they will have a long and bloody occupation that follows where more Jewish IDF and Palestinians lives will be lost. It's very sad when you think about it. A "bloody occupation where IDF lives will be lost" is better than a bunch of October 7 massacres, which Hamas has openly promised to commit. Hamas delenda est.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Apr 22, 2024 14:24:24 GMT
I hope everyone realizes that America's first overseas war was in the Middle East against Jihadists.
President Thomas Jefferson kicked ass and stopped 1000 years of Jihadists kidnapping Europeans as hostages and slaves.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 22, 2024 14:25:02 GMT
That does not follow. We give money to NATO and we have troops in Europe, we give money to Ukraine, we have troops in Japan, and we have troops in South Korea. But that does not give us a right to interfere in the internal affairs of European countries, Ukraine, Japan, or South Korea. Jews are born to be pushed around by everyone else, in some people's minds.
We aren't supposed to defend our lives or decide how to defend our lives or decide which leaders to choose.
We're supposed to die and to get kicked out of places.
This attitude towards Jews has gone on for thousands of years.
And leftists who want Israel to lose think they are the best ones to decide Israel's military strategy. LOL
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Apr 22, 2024 14:27:25 GMT
Marine Hymn...
From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli.
Fighting in the Middle East against Jihadists goes almost all the way back to 1776.
It was about 25 years later.
They were a problem for Europeans for 1000 years.
Israel didn't invent all this. It has been in American history since the Thomas Jefferson days.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 22, 2024 14:27:34 GMT
when Israel decides to go rogue, they are more harmful to the US than beneficial.
Rubbish. Israel's destruction of Hamas is beneficial to the U.S., since Hamas consists of "enemies of the human race", as Thomas Jefferson referred to those 18th century Islamic terrorists, the Barbary Pirates. I wasnโt talking about Hamas. I was talking about continued escalation with Iran. Israel's most recent response to Iran was de-escalatory.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 22, 2024 14:30:53 GMT
That does not follow. We give money to NATO and we have troops in Europe, we give money to Ukraine, we have troops in Japan, and we have troops in South Korea. But that does not give us a right to interfere in the internal affairs of European countries, Ukraine, Japan, or South Korea. We give money to NATO and a bunch of other countries also give money to NATO. NATO is an alliance between countries and all the countries contribute money to support it. Itโs apples and oranges to us giving weapons directly to Israel. I donโt agree with continuing to fund Ukraine either. So try again. You are willing to let Russia overrun Ukraine? Surely that would be wonderfully beneficial for America, and for our allies in Europe. LOL Even if you ignore NATO and Ukraine, we spend money to maintain troops in Japan and South Korea. That does not give us the right to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 23, 2024 8:41:08 GMT
We give money to NATO and a bunch of other countries also give money to NATO. NATO is an alliance between countries and all the countries contribute money to support it. Itโs apples and oranges to us giving weapons directly to Israel. I donโt agree with continuing to fund Ukraine either. So try again. You are willing to let Russia overrun Ukraine? Surely that would be wonderfully beneficial for America, and for our allies in Europe. LOL Even if you ignore NATO and Ukraine, we spend money to maintain troops in Japan and South Korea. That does not give us the right to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries. It would actually be irrelevant for America as Ukraine has never been a core US interest. Throughout most of the American history, Ukraine had been under direct Russian control or at least under Russia's sphere of influence. And America was fine, some might even say better than it is now. It's not in the 2020's that Ukraine suddenly becomes really important to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 23, 2024 14:57:31 GMT
You are willing to let Russia overrun Ukraine? Surely that would be wonderfully beneficial for America, and for our allies in Europe. LOL Even if you ignore NATO and Ukraine, we spend money to maintain troops in Japan and South Korea. That does not give us the right to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries. It would actually be irrelevant for America as Ukraine has never been a core US interest. Throughout most of the American history, Ukraine had been under direct Russian control or at least under Russia's sphere of influence. And America was fine, some might even say better than it is now. It's not in the 2020's that Ukraine suddenly becomes really important to the United States. Czechoslovakia and Poland were under the control of Germany, Austria, and Russia. So that means those three countries have a right to re-capture Czechoslovakia and Poland? Welcome to WWII. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia already grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Wasn't that enough? The reason America needs to stay involved is that if aggression is rewarded, it leads to further aggression, which would make the world a much more dangerous place.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 23, 2024 15:04:21 GMT
It would actually be irrelevant for America as Ukraine has never been a core US interest. Throughout most of the American history, Ukraine had been under direct Russian control or at least under Russia's sphere of influence. And America was fine, some might even say better than it is now. It's not in the 2020's that Ukraine suddenly becomes really important to the United States. Czechoslovakia and Poland were under the control of Germany, Austria, and Russia. So that means those three countries have a right to re-capture Czechoslovakia and Poland? Welcome to WWII. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia already grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Wasn't that enough? The reason America needs to stay involved is that if aggression is rewarded, it leads to further aggression, which would make the world a much more dangerous place. That wasn't my argument. The argument was the idea that Ukraine status as a sovereign nation is beneficial to the US. This in contrast with Taiwan, which is not sovereign but it's far more important for American interests than Ukraine. Throughout most of American history, Ukraine has been under the Russian yoke and it never mattered. Besides, we already live in a world where certain countries can be aggressive without any real consequences. And this was true long before the current war in Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by marsatax on Apr 23, 2024 16:07:20 GMT
Czechoslovakia and Poland were under the control of Germany, Austria, and Russia. So that means those three countries have a right to re-capture Czechoslovakia and Poland? Welcome to WWII. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia already grabbed the Crimea from Ukraine. Wasn't that enough? The reason America needs to stay involved is that if aggression is rewarded, it leads to further aggression, which would make the world a much more dangerous place. That wasn't my argument. The argument was the idea that Ukraine status as a sovereign nation is beneficial to the US. This in contrast with Taiwan, which is not sovereign but it's far more important for American interests than Ukraine. Throughout most of American history, Ukraine has been under the Russian yoke and it never mattered. Besides, we already live in a world where certain countries can be aggressive without any real consequences. And this was true long before the current war in Ukraine. People argued the same way before WWII. Japan grabbed Manchuria from China in 1931, then invaded the rest of China later in the 1930s. But a war in faraway China doesn't threaten us, right? Around the same time, Fascist Italy under Mussolini conquered Ethiopia. Ethiopia's leader spoke at the League of Nations, warning that successful aggression against Ethiopia will lead to aggression against others, but to no avail. When Hitler wanted to take land from Czechoslovakia in 1938, Britain's PM Neville Chamberlain said, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing!" Chamberlain gave Hitler the land on a silver platter. The following year, when Hitler started threatening Poland, some Brits had the slogan "Don't die for Danzig". America thought it could stay out of the conflict. After all, we were protected by two vast oceans from the fighting in Europe and Asia. Dec. 7, 1941 was rude awakening. America finally learned its lesson. When North Korea invaded the South in 1950, America decided to fight for the South. Similarly, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, again America went to war against the aggressor. We have a bargain in Ukraine, since we do not have to do any fighting; all we have to do is supply the Ukrainians with weapons, and they will do the fighting.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 24, 2024 8:13:09 GMT
That wasn't my argument. The argument was the idea that Ukraine status as a sovereign nation is beneficial to the US. This in contrast with Taiwan, which is not sovereign but it's far more important for American interests than Ukraine. Throughout most of American history, Ukraine has been under the Russian yoke and it never mattered. Besides, we already live in a world where certain countries can be aggressive without any real consequences. And this was true long before the current war in Ukraine. People argued the same way before WWII. Japan grabbed Manchuria from China in 1931, then invaded the rest of China later in the 1930s. But a war in faraway China doesn't threaten us, right? Around the same time, Fascist Italy under Mussolini conquered Ethiopia. Ethiopia's leader spoke at the League of Nations, warning that successful aggression against Ethiopia will lead to aggression against others, but to no avail. When Hitler wanted to take land from Czechoslovakia in 1938, Britain's PM Neville Chamberlain said, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing!" Chamberlain gave Hitler the land on a silver platter. The following year, when Hitler started threatening Poland, some Brits had the slogan "Don't die for Danzig". America thought it could stay out of the conflict. After all, we were protected by two vast oceans from the fighting in Europe and Asia. Dec. 7, 1941 was rude awakening. America finally learned its lesson. When North Korea invaded the South in 1950, America decided to fight for the South. Similarly, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, again America went to war against the aggressor. We have a bargain in Ukraine, since we do not have to do any fighting; all we have to do is supply the Ukrainians with weapons, and they will do the fighting. Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable? Maybe. Europe was one of the biggest economic centers back then so it was definitely important for US interests to get involved in Europe back then and the US was attacked directly by Japan which justifies self defense. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine. Another difference is that there was no risk of generalized nuclear war unlike now, which is why comparisons with WW2 are completely misguided. The lessons of WW2 don't apply to this conflict. The lessons of the Cold War do. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison. A bargain that is measured in the loss of Ukrainian lives, sure. Especially given the recent reports that the war could've ended right in the beginning if the US and allies were willing to do diplomacy. Now it's looking that Ukraine is on the backfoot and extremely unlikely to recover the lost territory. So in short, this war might end with Ukraine in a worse position than it was before.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 24, 2024 8:19:55 GMT
Which of course, the situation is completely different from WW2 but I know, people have to always justify war with WW2. Interesting that they never use one of the conflicts that the US has been involved since then. Could it be that almost all the wars that the US has been involved since then weren't morally justifiable? Maybe. Europe was one of the biggest economic centers back then so it was definitely important for US interests to get involved in Europe back then and the US was attacked directly by Japan which justifies self defense. The idea that Russia is going to attack the US directly after taking the entire Ukraine which is probably not even the goal of Putin is asinine. Another difference is that there was no risk of generalized nuclear war unlike now, which is why comparisons with WW2 are completely misguided. The lessons of WW2 don't apply to this conflict. The lessons of the Cold War do. And I don't recall the US intervening when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, a much better comparison.
Just the fact that we haven't officially declared war since the 1940s tells me all I need to know about our MIC.
And threatening that Russia will spread itself all over the globe........while the the people promoting it are spreading the US/NATO all over the globe? Seems like totally fabricated propaganda.
|
|