Why it’s too late to stop World War 3

[Gunny]

A Telegraph article. Pretty good read.

Why it’s too late to stop World War 3 (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/news/why-too-stop-world-war-120000865.html)

[Kathianne]

A Telegraph article. Pretty good read.

Why it’s too late to stop World War 3 (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/news/why-too-stop-world-war-120000865.html)

Very good article. Has several ideas on how, including accidental war and allies dominoing.

[revelarts]

If Trump said he was going to stop it.
Because he wasn't going to help Ukraine anymore and he was going to refuse to send troops or more aid to Europe or the mid-east.
But put all his efforts on the U.S. boarder and deportations.
How many here would support that, if you knew the alternative was WW3?

[Kathianne]

If Trump said he was going to stop it.
Because he wasn't going to help Ukraine anymore and he was going to refuse to send troops or more aid to Europe or the mid-east.
But put all his efforts on the U.S. boarder and deportations.
How many here would support that, if you knew the alternative was WW3?

You honestly think IF he did say, which he may, that would change the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian mindsets?

[Gunny]

If Trump said he was going to stop it.
Because he wasn't going to help Ukraine anymore and he was going to refuse to send troops or more aid to Europe or the mid-east.
But put all his efforts on the U.S. boarder and deportations.
How many here would support that, if you knew the alternative was WW3?Need to get off your soapbox. Pretending it's not there isn't going to change the reality of what is. There are those people/leaders, as mentioned in the article, determined to have the power and resources and proving they are willing to kill to get them.

On the other hand, you just want to hand it all over for free.

[revelarts]

You honestly think IF he did say, which he may, that would change the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian mindsets?

I'm not asking about the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian mindsets.



Need to get off your soapbox. Pretending it's not there isn't going to change the reality of what is. There are those people/leaders, as mentioned in the article, determined to have the power and resources and proving they are willing to kill to get them.

On the other hand, you just want to hand it all over for free.
So is that a no?
Millions+ dead for the "power & resources" is the best way to go?

Btw "hand it over?" are those foreign countries U.S. states?
Or their property & resource owned by the U.S.?
Don't we have access to other resources?... as in, in our own country & elsewhere?


real questions.
Nothing is inevitable... except death & taxes

[fj1200]

I'm not asking about the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian mindsets.

But aren't those the most critical mindsets to the eventual march of history?

[Kathianne]

But aren't those the most critical mindsets to the eventual march of history?

Yeah, I didn't have a response to that. Seems like if US would just ignore, all of this would go away.

[fj1200]

Yeah, I didn't have a response to that. Seems like if US would just ignore, all of this would go away.

That seems to be the base question of the Pax Americana IMO. Is/was the US a net positive or net negative on the world post WWII. Personally I think it's net positive by a long margin.

[revelarts]

So the question is do we really want the Pax Americana... emphasis on the PEACE
Or if you want to believe in a CONTINUED PEACE
It seems to me the American People and the American president might still have some sway in the world.
Maybe if the major corps and financiers could be stopped from suppling the world with arms, and money.
Seem Israel can't even deal with those in their country without U.S. help.
Same for Ukraine.
Gunny posted how China's being propped up by U.S. dollars.

Almost seems like if the U.S. didn't support the wars they wouldn't have fuel (hmm) to last that long.
Historically we now know that even our enemies have relied on U.S. cash, supplies & tech.

Wars, Armies run on the supply chains. Does America have a say in that world wide?
It's almost like we wouldn't even need to kill people with bombs or drones etc.
If we were serious about peace, maybe the US could make it happen. if those who want to make money off of WW3 could be put in check.

IF we don't pretend that US companies or supranational corps would never do such a thing.

If we want peace rather than millions dead that is, or if we don't feel like we have to save face or flex our military might,
or whatever the slogan will be to get young people signed up for and be PROUD of next the gov't sponsored world slaughter.

[fj1200]

^I think you need to check your presumptions with number 1 being how much do you lay at the feet of the US. We are not the only arms suppliers in the world and if we were not an arms supplier at all to what extent would powerful countries invade the less powerful?

[revelarts]

^I think you need to check your presumptions with number 1 being how much do you lay at the feet of the US. We are not the only arms suppliers in the world and if we were not an arms supplier at all to what extent would powerful countries invade the less powerful?
Lets check.
"According to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, sales of the globe's top 100 arms manufacturers amounted to just over $400 billion in 2014. The United States accounted for 54.4 percent of the world's arms sales in 2014, followed by the United Kingdom and Russia. Seven out of the world's top ten largest arms producing companies are American. Lockheed Martin leads the way, according to the report, with 2014 arms sales totalling $37.5 billion."
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/4183.jpeg

The World's Biggest Postwar Arms Exporters
DEFENSE
https://www.statista.com/chart/13205/the-worlds-biggest-postwar-arms-exporters/

Mar 12, 2018
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its latest arms trade data today and we've delved into it, looking all the way back to the export figures from 1950. Since then, and probably unsurprisingly, the two biggest arms exporters have been the U.S. and Russia (including the Soviet Union) with a total of 673 billion and 588 billion respectively. Looking beyond these behemoths, the UK has actually been the third largest exporter, shipping arms worth 140 billion over the 68 year period.

This infographic uses the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's "trend-indicator values" (TIV). These are based on the known unit production costs of weapons and represent the transfer of military resources rather than the financial value of the transfer.

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/13205.jpeg

https://www.statista.com/chart/18417/global-weapons-exports/
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18417.jpeg


https://www.statista.com/chart/17316/share-of-global-arms-exports-by-country/
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has released new data on the volume of global arms exports between 2014 and 2018.

https://www.statista.com/chart/31526/share-of-global-exports-of-major-conventional-weapons-systems-and-components/


https://www.statista.com/chart/32449/global-nuclear-weapon-spending-change/


https://www.statista.com/chart/31526/share-of-global-exports-of-major-conventional-weapons-systems-and-components/
"The United States was the largest arms exporter between 2018 and 2022, making up 40 percent of all international arms sales, delivering weapons to 103 states. This marks an increase from the 33.0 percent it accounted for between 2013 and 2017.

As this chart shows, Russia followed in second place. The country has seen a fall in its major arms exports over the past years, having accounted for 16.0 percent of global arms exports between 2018-22, down from 22 percent in 2013-17. Most weapons went to India (31 percent), China (23 percent) and Egypt (9.3 percent).

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia’s arms exports are expected to continue to fall in the coming years. The organization's experts attribute this to both a low volume of pending deliveries from other countries as well as the war in Ukraine, which they say will likely put “additional constraints on Russia’s ability to export arms, as it is likely to prioritize the production of arms for its own military over those for export.”"


To your 2nd part, most countries around the world aren't invading other countries.
If i were to guess I suspect there's more danger from Inner country conflicts than from external invasions breaking out world wide.
Of course there are some LONG on going boarder disputes in a few places but are we really "helping" any of those now?

But you were correcting me saying we're not able to have 20/20 hindsight or foresight.
But do we have 20/20 foresight as to what countries are going to be invaded by others?
So we should only sell to countries that are in danger of invasion?

But to add to the main point overall, as i mentioned before, it's not just Arms sales, it's also cash, loans and other financial promises.
As well as access to fuel and other supplies, that enable wars. Not to mention in modern warfare access to communications, satellite info, other tech.

Look, we all know there are no perfect solutions.
My question is are WE serious about peace rather than just bumbling into a WW3. Does anyone have 20/20 foresight into how that will end?
If we had to guess, would using every financial lever to DRY UP war financing, war supplies AND supply lines be worse for the U.S. and the world than WW3?

Using 20/20 foresight, Is WW3 the best solution to ANY problem?

[fj1200]

To your 2nd part, most countries around the world aren't invading other countries.
If i were to guess I suspect there's more danger from Inner country conflicts than from external invasions breaking out world wide.
Of course there are some LONG on going boarder disputes in a few places but are we really "helping" any of those now?

But you were correcting me saying we're not able to have 20/20 hindsight or foresight.
But do we have 20/20 foresight as to what countries are going to be invaded by others?
So we should only sell to countries that are in danger of invasion?

But to add to the main point overall, as i mentioned before, it's not just Arms sales, it's also cash, loans and other financial promises.
As well as access to fuel and other supplies, that enable wars. Not to mention in modern warfare access to communications, satellite info, other tech.

Look, we all know there are no perfect solutions.
My question is are WE serious about peace rather than just bumbling into a WW3. Does anyone have 20/20 foresight into how that will end?
If we had to guess, would using every financial lever to DRY UP war financing, war supplies AND supply lines be worse for the U.S. and the world than WW3?

Using 20/20 foresight, Is WW3 the best solution to ANY problem?

The second part is the most important part. If you take the US out of the equation you do not take territorial aggression out of the equation. If you take the US out of the equation to what extent does Russia or China become the largest suppliers? No. and, much larger are the answers IMO.

You may think the US is an empire but what would empires truly look like if the US didn't stand with its allies. It might be a fun debate to have but it's not the simple equation you seem to make it.

[revelarts]

The second part is the most important part. If you take the US out of the equation you do not take territorial aggression out of the equation. If you take the US out of the equation to what extent does Russia or China become the largest suppliers? No. and, much larger are the answers IMO.

You may think the US is an empire but what would empires truly look like if the US didn't stand with its allies. It might be a fun debate to have but it's not the simple equation you seem to make it.
What will the world look like if the US supplies our allies ...and our adversaries... everything they need to fight WW3.
What will our allies look like after WW3?

[fj1200]

What will the world look like if the US supplies our allies ...and our adversaries... everything they need to fight WW3.
What will our allies look like after WW3?

Well, golly, the world will be a nuclear waste land. The only obvious answer. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

I'm not asking about the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian mindsets.



So is that a no?
Millions+ dead for the "power & resources" is the best way to go?

Btw "hand it over?" are those foreign countries U.S. states?
Or their property & resource owned by the U.S.?
Don't we have access to other resources?... as in, in our own country & elsewhere?


real questions.
Nothing is inevitable... except death & taxes

Giving bullies what they want always ends the same way. They're back for more, or you stop them. What you want isn't in his plans except where he gets what he wants however he has to. The less effort, the better for him. Eiter way you lose unless you stop him. No amount of BS word salad changes this bottom line.

[revelarts]

Giving bullies what they want always ends the same way. They're back for more, or you stop them. What you want isn't in his plans except where he gets what he wants however he has to. The less effort, the better for him. Either way you lose unless you stop him. No amount of BS word salad changes this bottom line.
"Either way you lose unless you stop him."
This is getting to the kind of honesty that i can deal with.
If someone truly thinks the ONLY choices we have are WW3 now/later or giving Putin the whole world.
I can understand that. the loose loose options could be real.
I personally don't think Putin wants to (or could) take over all of Europe, but i can understand the POV of those who think the "bully" framework is the ONLY way to look at the situation.
-And also point to Hitler as the classic example of a bully... while if others point to Hitler comparisons they are crazy or using word salads.-

I understand the mindset that'd rather fight even if we all die, rather than give up an inch of ground. or see someone else give up an inch to a bully.
I think most people can understand that viscerally.

My question is are we honestly ready to die and have our young family members die for every inch of Ukraine land?
the politicians are blowing smoke about using the Ukrainians to DEFEAT the Russians. "just give them Cash, weapons they need" & 3 weeks of military training. "It cost us less" "we need the minerals, and the wheat there!".
The politicians are not talking about the level of real lost we're walking into for Ukraine here.
They are using the Ukrainian people as canon fodder.

Gunny I respect that you're more honest about what you see as the alternatives.

My word salad is basically a hopeful/"hail mary" option to WW3, a FINANCIAL PRE-EMPTIVE strike on WW3.
(that could work if there was political will)
The Brics China and Russia are not self sufficient ...YET... the U.S is STILL the major financial engine of the world in general and definitely when it comes to financing and supplying for WAR. FOR ALL SIDES.
there's more ways to "fight" than militarily. not every problem is a nail. Some Bullies have been essentially defused without fights by clever opponents. It's not as viscerally satisfying as a fight (as a fight falsely promises to be when people die) but if PEACE is the real goal anyway, it's a win.

But, Yes it'd mean the loss of a HUGE hunk of Ukraine. Call me Chamberlin i guess... IF Putin moves farther.

But again I can appreciate the POV that says:
We've got 2 hellish choices, one is peace with multifaceted bleeding wound of loss.
The other is war with the likely chance of HUGE loss for everyone and millions dead.

What bugs me is folks pretending that WW3 is "necessary" or "inevitable".
or that we just need to help Ukraine "win" a bit more an it will all be A-ok. that was a lie from the beginning.

[Gunny]

"Either way you lose unless you stop him."
This is getting to the kind of honesty that i can deal with.
If someone truly thinks the ONLY choices we have are WW3 now/later or giving Putin the whole world.
I can understand that. the loose loose options could be real.
I personally don't think Putin wants to (or could) take over all of Europe, but i can understand the POV of those who think the "bully" framework is the ONLY way to look at the situation.
-And also point to Hitler as the classic example of a bully... while if others point to Hitler comparisons they are crazy or using word salads.-

I understand the mindset that'd rather fight even if we all die, rather than give up an inch of ground. or see someone else give up an inch to a bully.
I think most people can understand that viscerally.

My question is are we honestly ready to die and have our young family members die for every inch of Ukraine land?
the politicians are blowing smoke about using the Ukrainians to DEFEAT the Russians. "just give them Cash, weapons they need" & 3 weeks of military training. "It cost us less" "we need the minerals, and the wheat there!".
The politicians are not talking about the level of real lost we're walking into for Ukraine here.
They are using the Ukrainian people as canon fodder.

Gunny I respect that you're more honest about what you see as the alternatives.

My word salad is basically a hopeful/"hail mary" option to WW3, a FINANCIAL PRE-EMPTIVE strike on WW3.
(that could work if there was political will)
The Brics China and Russia are not self sufficient ...YET... the U.S is STILL the major financial engine of the world in general and definitely when it comes to financing and supplying for WAR. FOR ALL SIDES.
there's more ways to "fight" than militarily. not every problem is a nail. Some Bullies have been essentially defused without fights by clever opponents. It's not as viscerally satisfying as a fight (as a fight falsely promises to be when people die) but if PEACE is the real goal anyway, it's a win.

But, Yes it'd mean the loss of a HUGE hunk of Ukraine. Call me Chamberlin i guess... IF Putin moves farther.

But again I can appreciate the POV that says:
We've got 2 hellish choices, one is peace with multifaceted bleeding wound of loss.
The other is war with the likely chance of HUGE loss for everyone and millions dead.

What bugs me is folks pretending that WW3 is "necessary" or "inevitable".
or that we just need to help Ukraine "win" a bit more an it will all be A-ok. that was a lie from the beginning.


My question is are we honestly ready to die and have our young family members die for every inch of Ukraine land?


So that all others willing to fight aggression/oppression are supported and have at least the same opportunity to do so that we have. All men are created equal. Only they are not. The moral imperative is that they at least be given an opportunity to make it so. You can say what you want about this country, but that opportunity exists here. Not so in Russia.

[revelarts]

So that all others willing to fight aggression/oppression are supported and have at least the same opportunity to do so that we have. All men are created equal. Only they are not. The moral imperative is that they at least be given an opportunity to make it so. You can say what you want about this country, but that opportunity exists here. Not so in Russia.

As I said I get that.
So Palestinian civilians have been run off from their homes, their land and have had their homes destroyed. and family members killed
Do they have right to fight back for every inch?
Do they have the same moral imperative, should they at least, be given an opportunity to make it so.

If you were Palestinian who was just living life, what would you think is the moral thing to do?

[Black Diamond]

As I said I get that.
So Palestinian civilians have been run off from their homes, their land and have had their homes destroyed. and family members killed
Do they have right to fight back for every inch?
Do they have the same moral imperative, should they at least, be given an opportunity to make it so.

If you were Palestinian who was just living life, what would you think is the moral thing to do?
Ask yourself a similar question re dresden and Hamburg residents.

[Gunny]

As I said I get that.
So Palestinian civilians have been run off from their homes, their land and have had their homes destroyed. and family members killed
Do they have right to fight back for every inch?
Do they have the same moral imperative, should they at least, be given an opportunity to make it so.

If you were Palestinian who was just living life, what would you think is the moral thing to do?

Palestinian civilians are suffering the consequences of their action. They voted for a terrorist group to represent them as their government to the World. They allow the terrorist group to hide among them when their moral imperative should be to turn them out as Hamas is reprehensible in every facet.

If I was an Arab calling myself "Palestinian" I would have left as soon as I was old enough to make it happen.

[revelarts]

Palestinian civilians are suffering the consequences of their action. They voted for a terrorist group to represent them as their government to the World. They allow the terrorist group to hide among them when their moral imperative should be to turn them out as Hamas is reprehensible in every facet.

If I was an Arab calling myself "Palestinian" I would have left as soon as I was old enough to make it happen.
BTW are you responsible for Biden?

But Israel propped up and funded Hamas -a terrorist group- for years against the PLO.
Israeli news and Israeli officials admit this. For some reason folks here don't acknowledge this.

Does Israel hold any responsibility for Hamases rise as well? Or do we simply deny that part and blame ALL Palestinians for "voting" for what Israel paid for?
If you've run from a bombed out neighborhood, & you're hiding out in a refugee camp with your family & a backpack and armed terrorist mix in with "your" group, then you get bombs rained on you. Do you have any love or loyalty to either group gunny?

You talk to me about "real world" situations that's reality. Who are you turning the terrorist over to Gunny?

[Kathianne]

BTW are you responsible for Biden?

But Israel propped up and funded Hamas -a terrorist group- for years against the PLO.
Israeli news and Israeli officials admit this. For some reason folks here don't acknowledge this.

Does Israel hold any responsibility for Hamases rise as well? Or do we simply deny that part and blame ALL Palestinians for "voting" for what Israel paid for?
If you've run from a bombed out neighborhood, & you're hiding out in a refugee camp with your family & a backpack and armed terrorist mix in with "your" group, then you get bombs rained on you. Do you have any love or loyalty to either group gunny?

You talk to me about "real world" situations that's reality. Who are you turning the terrorist over to Gunny?

I went looking for info on this, shockingly, everything I find is from 2023 and 2024, all by anti-Netanyahu sources. Why? Israel has been anti-Hamas far before these years or even 2019 when the only 'identified charge' is cited-but not confirmed.

let me guess, heard it on youtube or internet...

[revelarts]

I went looking for info on this, shockingly, everything I find is from 2023 and 2024, all by anti-Netanyahu sources. Why? Israel has been anti-Hamas far before these years or even 2019 when the only 'identified charge' is cited-but not confirmed.

let me guess, heard it on youtube or internet...

Look, Kath,
I'm kinda done finding all the details for folks to deny anyway.
If i post a news links, links to history, books, videos, audio, official documents, quotes you guys too often ignore, deny or dismiss them if you don't like the content.
I'm done.

But sorry to say It is a fact
-Israel propped up and funded Hamas -a terrorist group- for years against the PLO.
Israeli news and Israeli officials admit this.-
One Israel general even warned his peers that it would bite them the arse, but he was ignored.

I'll tell you this, i'm pretty sure I've posted this information several times before over the years here with links & quotes.
Recently I've posted a version of it from Ron Paul in speech he gave in congress well over 10 years ago.
the video was probably not watched. skipped with no comment.

If you think I'm making exaggerations or have bad sources fine.
But i think you know me well enough to know that i don't typically make assertions that come from 1 source. However If you only want to find only sources that loves Netanyahu, good luck with that.

[fj1200]

^ I don't recall a vigorous debate around that particular subject.

[Kathianne]

Look, Kath,
I'm kinda done finding all the details for folks to deny anyway.
If i post a news links, links to history, books, videos, audio, official documents, quotes you guys too often ignore, deny or dismiss them if you don't like the content.
I'm done.

But sorry to say It is a fact
-Israel propped up and funded Hamas -a terrorist group- for years against the PLO.
Israeli news and Israeli officials admit this.-
One Israel general even warned his peers that it would bite them the arse, but he was ignored.

I'll tell you this, i'm pretty sure I've posted this information several times before over the years here with links & quotes.
Recently I've posted a version of it from Ron Paul in speech he gave in congress well over 10 years ago.
the video was probably not watched. skipped with no comment.

If you think I'm making exaggerations or have bad sources fine.
But i think you know me well enough to know that i don't typically make assertions that come from 1 source. However If you only want to find only sources that loves Netanyahu, good luck with that.

No, it's a problem for me when there is no proof, just those that hate someone saying, 'Hey, they did this...' It's like would you really want to take seriously some charge I made against Trump, without proof? I don't blame you, my feelings about him have been clear. I'm going to vote for him, there is no alternative. Doesn't change my feelings about him though I admit he's toned things down quite a bit. CNN certainly did him a favor with mute and no audience. He was presidential, well close.

[revelarts]

^ I don't recall a vigorous debate around that particular subject.


No, it's a problem for me when there is no proof, just those that hate someone saying, 'Hey, they did this...' It's like would you really want to take seriously some charge I made against Trump, without proof? I don't blame you, my feelings about him have been clear. I'm going to vote for him, there is no alternative. Doesn't change my feelings about him though I admit he's toned things down quite a bit. CNN certainly did him a favor with mute and no audience. He was presidential, well close.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78831-Why-Hamas-Must-Be-Destroyed&p=1020116#post1020116

[Kathianne]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78831-Why-Hamas-Must-Be-Destroyed&p=1020116#post1020116


Ok, that's what I thought. I don't have a problem with your agreement with Rockwell or Paul, etc., just realize that others don't have the same mindset or trust in such. I understand you don't like that, but it's just the way it is. I find it easier to listen to when you at least say something that acknowledges why your listening to these videos make sense to you and why you think others might want to consider. Just throwing up the videos or hiding the sources doesn't work for me.

Not asking anyone to do what I do with reading or sources, but you will usually find that I can cite both sides of any issue, from sources that are biased and also from the differing point of view. Sometimes I do it even when not challenged, truth is I don't trust near any source.

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78831-Why-Hamas-Must-Be-Destroyed&p=1020116#post1020116

Yeah, that didn't seem to be much debate about the subject. The debate was in the extension of what you apparently thought was important.

[revelarts]

Ok, that's what I thought. I don't have a problem with your agreement with Rockwell or Paul, etc.,


“Etc” so you did see where they got the info from correct, the Washington post Haartz who were quoting Israeli officials, generals and others that work in Gaza since the 70s forward.



just realize that others don't have the same mindset or trust in such.
I think i said that in my last post folks DENY, DISMISS, etc…


I understand you don't like that, but it's just the way it is.
no i don’t like that folks have no good reason to question the “sources” other than facts present by them doesn’t align with your POV.
It’s not objective thinking. And is frustrating especially when people act like their views are based on ALL the facts and being rational.
I prefer if people are more honest and say, HERE ARE COUNTER FACTS that NEGATE what you presented
OR I”M NOT SURE, I need more info,
OR ‘I DON’T CARE what the facts are, my position is XYZ’ ,
rather than pretzeled backhanded denials based on source or information format.



I find it easier to listen to when you at least say something that acknowledges why your listening to these videos make sense to you
Why I’m listening to them? to find out ALL the facts. To get closer the truth of any situation at issue.
But when I made the post that just linked to, did i hide any links? Didn’t i say WHY i posted it?
But no one responded to it, i doubt anyone looked at the content. you & FJ don’t even remember seeing the IDEA before. but i’ve posted about it at least 3 time before.



and why you think others might want to consider.
For some reason I have this weird idea that some people do WANT TO KNOW the reality of the issues we talk about.
Never occurred to me that a site called “debate policy” wants to leave important information OFF the table.



Just throwing up the videos or hiding the sources doesn't work for me.
what source have i hidden?
If i post my opinion and the reasons, people say i’m wrong & my facts are wrong.
When i post links and quotes to sources people say i’m posting a wall of words.
Folks say they don't watch videos, or read a book, or they don't like the experts or studies.
Like i said Kath. I’m done.
If Folks want to check to see if i’m talking out o my arse, they can, but why should i post sources that even HERE in this post you claim are spurious and you did not check deep enough to find or ACKNOWLEDGE the Israeli sources?
If folks don't want to know anything more than they already think they know from sources they agree with, cool.



Not asking anyone to do what I do with reading or sources, but you will usually find that I can cite both sides of any issue, from sources that are biased and also from the differing point of view. Sometimes I do it even when not challenged, truth is I don't trust near any source.
No need for me to post “BOTH SIDES” when the “SIDE” I’ve posted isn’t taken seriously or ignored.
Or the facts stand unchallenged.

Kath, the SKY is Blue, Alex Jones says so. Here’s a video.
What other side should i post?

[fj1200]

What other side should i post?

I for one don't think you need to post both sides, just think through and be able to defend the one you do post. :)


As I said I get that.
So Palestinian civilians have been run off from their homes, their land and have had their homes destroyed. and family members killed
Do they have right to fight back for every inch?
Do they have the same moral imperative, should they at least, be given an opportunity to make it so.

If you were Palestinian who was just living life, what would you think is the moral thing to do?

Yes, they have a right to fight back. They just can't make the demand to be given the tools to do so. As BD pointed out you can ask the same question to 1944 Dresden and 1944 Tokyo among others.

Do you want that we should stop arming Israel? Make the case. Do you want we should start arming Hamas? Make the case.

[revelarts]

I for one don't think you need to post both sides, just think through and be able to defend the one you do post. :)

Yes, they have a right to fight back. They just can't make the demand to be given the tools to do so. As BD pointed out you can ask the same question to 1944 Dresden and 1944 Tokyo among others.

Do you want that we should stop arming Israel? Make the case. Do you want we should start arming Hamas? Make the case.


The case is simple legally.
Hamas has not attacked the U.S..
Israel is not a treaty bound ally.
If anything it's a civil war.

We are not obligated legally to either side.
There is no real legal counter (other side) to this.

None that could not be honestly turned to say that we should help ANY country that has an internal conflict over land or internal kidnapping bombings etc..
Do we need a list of countries like this so that we can decide which side to help with billions of dollars and billions in arms?

The concept of fighting for freedom & land is great.
The Palestinians have live in, been corralled into, Gaza for decades maybe hundreds of years?. It's their land.
Should they be attacking Israel? NO.
Should Israel bomb them all out of their homes, off their land and starve them to death. Id say No. (so do many in Israel BTW)
Should we help either of them kill each other. I say Absolutely not.
MAYBE we should go back to the ONGOING, never ending, project of trying to help them live in relative peace.

Or maybe we should mind our own biz. And let them work it out. without our "help".
People in the U.S. seem very emotionally attached to the issue and to want to take sides.
But legally, factually it's NOT our problem. Israel helped create Hamas.
Israel is not a child. It's the dominant military in the region. How about we let other countries be independent when it comes to dealing with internal conflicts like this.

Humanitarian aid is something that the U.S. should ALWAYS be ready to do. private & public.
But helping to kill people of other nations? without a declaration of war?
How does that work?
Oh yeah... we've done it before... precedents... seems we're entangled the question in precedents again.

[Gunny]

BTW are you responsible for Biden?

But Israel propped up and funded Hamas -a terrorist group- for years against the PLO.
Israeli news and Israeli officials admit this. For some reason folks here don't acknowledge this.

Does Israel hold any responsibility for Hamases rise as well? Or do we simply deny that part and blame ALL Palestinians for "voting" for what Israel paid for?
If you've run from a bombed out neighborhood, & you're hiding out in a refugee camp with your family & a backpack and armed terrorist mix in with "your" group, then you get bombs rained on you. Do you have any love or loyalty to either group gunny?

You talk to me about "real world" situations that's reality. Who are you turning the terrorist over to Gunny?

Sadly, I EXPECTED and KNEW this response was coming from you. Your intellectually dishonest word salad is just that predictable.

We, the People ARE responsible in the eyes of the World for our government and its actions. Only "We, the People," in our supreme arrogance believe otherwise.

None of that changes a damned thing when it comes to knowing the difference between good and evil. Right, Bible thumper? Or is it that good and evil are defined by political expedience in your church?

Hamas exists solely for the purpose of destroying Israel. It has no other purpose. I doubt they've given thought to WTF they would do if they got their wish. Day jobs for preachers of hatred and murder in the guise of a religion? They don't want an end to this war. Just to maintain relevance while the leaders get rich on the backs of the people they use as both weapon and shield. An end would ruin their gig.

Everything about that is evil. And if those so-called "innocent Palestinians" wanted things differently? They've had since the 1940s to figure out something that works better than this shit. Or maybe not. Might be the long way around the block but as long as there are apologists for bad guys around to defend that FUBAR, BS mess and call for the heads of people actually trying to earn a living and have a life they've got a chance in this backwards-ass-thinking World.