The U.S. Navy has established a Force of so far at least 12 Surface Ships in the Middle East to Defend the Region against and Respond to an Iranian Attack, with the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) currently operating in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea with an Escort of 6 Arleigh… pic.twitter.com/dGN7qxVbSq
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 1, 2024
Netanyahu said "we are at war,"
328,735 Views |
5776 Replies |
Last: 1 min ago by whiterock
playing the long game....
BREAKING via The New York Times
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) August 1, 2024
Ismail Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device covertly smuggled into the Tehran guesthouse where he was staying.
The bomb had been hidden approximately two months ago in the guesthouse.
Once it was confirmed that he was inside the… pic.twitter.com/7aIeE30K4c
boognish_bear said:
playing the long game....BREAKING via The New York Times
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) August 1, 2024
Ismail Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device covertly smuggled into the Tehran guesthouse where he was staying.
The bomb had been hidden approximately two months ago in the guesthouse.
Once it was confirmed that he was inside the… pic.twitter.com/7aIeE30K4c
boognish_bear said:The U.S. Navy has established a Force of so far at least 12 Surface Ships in the Middle East to Defend the Region against and Respond to an Iranian Attack, with the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) currently operating in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea with an Escort of 6 Arleigh… pic.twitter.com/dGN7qxVbSq
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 1, 2024
If these morons want to fight a foreign war on behalf of a foreign nation using my tax dollars, I certainly wont be shedding any tears if they get blown to hell.
whitetrash said:boognish_bear said:
playing the long game....BREAKING via The New York Times
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) August 1, 2024
Ismail Haniyeh was killed by an explosive device covertly smuggled into the Tehran guesthouse where he was staying.
The bomb had been hidden approximately two months ago in the guesthouse.
Once it was confirmed that he was inside the… pic.twitter.com/7aIeE30K4c
Hamas meetings are gonna be like:
BREAKING 🚨
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) August 1, 2024
Senator Lindsey Graham has introduced a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iran. pic.twitter.com/hhB1gsfsEv
#BREAKING Pentagon officials told CNN:
— War Intel (@warintel4u) July 31, 2024
Iran and its allies will launch a large-scale attack on Israel in the next 72 hours pic.twitter.com/o3Iolfvuj8
And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
Bibi went to DC and met with Kamala. Got home, said screw this, and offed half the Middle East's terror leaders.
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) August 1, 2024
muddybrazos said:And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
You really believe that? Wow. That takes some serious gymnastics to get there.
Not really, Bibi knows he needs this war and he needs to do it now. Have a bomb fall on the Golan heights that hits 0 jews and then you can strike Lebanon. BTW, Lebanon is 1/3 Christian so when they start giving Lebanon the Gaza treatment they will be genociding Christians and leveling holy sites there.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
You really believe that? Wow. That takes some serious gymnastics to get there.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4
Two days after a rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights, killing 12 children, many questions remain about the attack on the Druze town of Majdal Shams.
Israel accused Hezbollah in Lebanon of deliberately targeting civilians, while the Lebanese militant group quickly issued a rare denial of any responsibility for the attack.
muddybrazos said:Not really, Bibi knows he needs this war and he needs to do it now. Have a bomb fall on the Golan heights that hits 0 jews and then you can strike Lebanon. BTW, Lebanon is 1/3 Christian so when they start giving Lebanon the Gaza treatment they will be genociding Christians and leveling holy sites there.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
You really believe that? Wow. That takes some serious gymnastics to get there.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4
Two days after a rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights, killing 12 children, many questions remain about the attack on the Druze town of Majdal Shams.
Israel accused Hezbollah in Lebanon of deliberately targeting civilians, while the Lebanese militant group quickly issued a rare denial of any responsibility for the attack.
Sorry, not going that far. Hezbellah and Hamas have enough of a track record to not have to do that stuff. Missiles are also trackable. They know where it originated. Unless they are now sending Zohan in to Lebanon to fire missiles at Israel so the IDF has a double front war and Iran. That does not make sense.
More likely, Iran and Hezbellah are emboldened by Biden and Harris lack of response. Harris boycotting the speech has ramifications.
Ok, post the link that shows it originated in Lebanon and I will believe it. So far Iran, hezbollah, Hamas etc have been very guarded with their strikes as to not blow this thing wide open bc that is exactly what Israel wants.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:Not really, Bibi knows he needs this war and he needs to do it now. Have a bomb fall on the Golan heights that hits 0 jews and then you can strike Lebanon. BTW, Lebanon is 1/3 Christian so when they start giving Lebanon the Gaza treatment they will be genociding Christians and leveling holy sites there.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
You really believe that? Wow. That takes some serious gymnastics to get there.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4
Two days after a rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights, killing 12 children, many questions remain about the attack on the Druze town of Majdal Shams.
Israel accused Hezbollah in Lebanon of deliberately targeting civilians, while the Lebanese militant group quickly issued a rare denial of any responsibility for the attack.
Sorry, not going that far. Hezbellah and Hamas have enough of a track record to not have to do that stuff. Missiles are also trackable. They know where it originated. Unless they are now sending Zohan in to Lebanon to fire missiles at Israel so the IDF has a double front war and Iran. That does not make sense.
More likely, Iran and Hezbellah are emboldened by Biden and Harris lack of response. Harris boycotting the speech has ramifications.
muddybrazos said:Ok, post the link that shows it originated in Lebanon and I will believe it. So far Iran, hezbollah, Hamas etc have been very guarded with their strikes as to not blow this thing wide open bc that is exactly what Israel wants.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:Not really, Bibi knows he needs this war and he needs to do it now. Have a bomb fall on the Golan heights that hits 0 jews and then you can strike Lebanon. BTW, Lebanon is 1/3 Christian so when they start giving Lebanon the Gaza treatment they will be genociding Christians and leveling holy sites there.FLBear5630 said:muddybrazos said:And even if you dont strike them they will do a fake strike so they can strike you back harder. Then they will escalate the war that they want so that we have to get dragged in to fight it for them.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.
You really believe that? Wow. That takes some serious gymnastics to get there.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4
Two days after a rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights, killing 12 children, many questions remain about the attack on the Druze town of Majdal Shams.
Israel accused Hezbollah in Lebanon of deliberately targeting civilians, while the Lebanese militant group quickly issued a rare denial of any responsibility for the attack.
Sorry, not going that far. Hezbellah and Hamas have enough of a track record to not have to do that stuff. Missiles are also trackable. They know where it originated. Unless they are now sending Zohan in to Lebanon to fire missiles at Israel so the IDF has a double front war and Iran. That does not make sense.
More likely, Iran and Hezbellah are emboldened by Biden and Harris lack of response. Harris boycotting the speech has ramifications.
Really? The IDF want to take on Iran, Hamas and Hezbellah all at the same time and risk the rest of the ME joining the party? What you are describing is a nightmare scenario for the IDF.
Have you read any of the reports? We are talking hundreds of rockets. There is no mystery to whose they are.
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 1, 2024
Hezbollah launches a rocket attack against Israel pic.twitter.com/y4okUbCcas
NEW: Biden and Netanyahu spoke today as the Biden administration seeks to prevent a series of Israeli assassinations in Beirut and Tehran from escalating into regional war.https://t.co/BtjyLGnNyE
— Axios (@axios) August 1, 2024
U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham calls for the United States to support Significant Strikes against Iranian Oil and Gas Infrastructure, if they continue with their planned Large-Scale Missile Attack against Israel. https://t.co/gCoSGIbGyH
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 1, 2024
There was nothing illegal about it. But to answer your question, we knew because they substantially cooperated with the UN. Now that they're kicking out the most qualified inspectors, it's not so certain.ATL Bear said:What a dumbass comment. How else would we have known they've been illegally enriching uranium?Sam Lowry said:That is great. Lovely to know after 15 years of you insisting the whole country was riddled with secret doomsday laboratories under every rock.ATL Bear said:They are all known.Sam Lowry said:The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.boognish_bear said:Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024
Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn
Like I said, gradually leading into war.whiterock said:you are consistent with your faulty premise.Sam Lowry said:What other plan is there? I've asked half a dozen times, and you can't tell me. Some version of Lend-Lease? That's what you do when you're gradually leading up to war. Or maybe you aren't ready commit and want to see what happens. Which is it?FLBear5630 said:You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.Sam Lowry said:No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?FLBear5630 said:This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...Sam Lowry said:The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.FLBear5630 said:NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.Sam Lowry said:3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."
We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.
Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.
It's like if I asked you in 1941 what the end game is and whether we're going to war with Germany and Japan. You say "What are you talking about? Why would we go to war with Germany and Japan? What does that have to do with anything?"
It has to do with long term strategy. Lend-Lease is not a strategy for winning a war. So if you're not at least thinking about NATO troops, you're not thinking.
We did Lend-Lease because we realized war was inevitable and we needed time to ramp up mobilization, and we waited quite a bit too long to do it.
We have learned our lessons and are ahead of the curve this go-around.
WW3 is not something we can avoid. It has already started. The only question is where we intend to win it.
https://apnews.com/article/belarus-china-military-drill-poland-8558b0e413351caa89cfbb3c4441f016
and let's not forget that Pershing arrived in the Philippines during the 19th century. Rules of engagement were quite a bit less encumbered than they are today.nein51 said:FLBear5630 said:Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."nein51 said:historian said:
Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.
Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.
Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.
Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.
All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.
He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.
The Philippines is wildly different than the ME. But your point it taken
LIke I said, the war has already started. At the moment, others are doing the fighting for us. If we help them win, we won't have to engage directly at all.Sam Lowry said:Like I said, gradually leading into war.whiterock said:you are consistent with your faulty premise.Sam Lowry said:What other plan is there? I've asked half a dozen times, and you can't tell me. Some version of Lend-Lease? That's what you do when you're gradually leading up to war. Or maybe you aren't ready commit and want to see what happens. Which is it?FLBear5630 said:You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.Sam Lowry said:No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?FLBear5630 said:This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...Sam Lowry said:The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.FLBear5630 said:NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.Sam Lowry said:3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."
We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.
Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.
It's like if I asked you in 1941 what the end game is and whether we're going to war with Germany and Japan. You say "What are you talking about? Why would we go to war with Germany and Japan? What does that have to do with anything?"
It has to do with long term strategy. Lend-Lease is not a strategy for winning a war. So if you're not at least thinking about NATO troops, you're not thinking.
We did Lend-Lease because we realized war was inevitable and we needed time to ramp up mobilization, and we waited quite a bit too long to do it.
We have learned our lessons and are ahead of the curve this go-around.
WW3 is not something we can avoid. It has already started. The only question is where we intend to win it.
https://apnews.com/article/belarus-china-military-drill-poland-8558b0e413351caa89cfbb3c4441f016
whiterock said:and let's not forget that Pershing arrived in the Philippines during the 19th century. Rules of engagement were quite a bit less encumbered than they are today.nein51 said:FLBear5630 said:Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."nein51 said:historian said:
Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.
Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.
Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.
Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.
All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.
He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.
The Philippines is wildly different than the ME. But your point it taken
Filipinos also didn't have a history of beheading people, stoning people or the belief that being a martyr is a sure way to heaven.
And Pershing wasn't dealing with instant and 24 hour propaganda questioning 100% of what he did.
All good points. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
whiterock said:it's not entirely a bad thing that American politicians consider the reaction of the American people when thinking about foreign policy.........KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?
It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .
The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.
Maybe. But their first priority should be what is best for the country not what's best for their poll numbers.
historian said:whiterock said:it's not entirely a bad thing that American politicians consider the reaction of the American people when thinking about foreign policy.........KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.Osodecentx said:Sam Lowry said:They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.KaiBear said:Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.boognish_bear said:REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾
— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024
Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.
Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?
It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .
The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.
Maybe. But their first priority should be what is best for the country not what's best for their poll numbers.
You're not wrong but literally no one would get elected/stay elected like that.
Taxes have to go up and spending has to come down but there's absolutely no way to get elected on that platform.
I never said it did. The president does not have that power either. However, in all the wars in US history, only 5 have been constitutionally declared wars (1812, Mexico, Spain, & both world wars). I don't like it but that's fact.
I'm so confused by the tendency of people to randomly capitalize words on X/Instagram. There doesn't Seem to be Any reason for the words They select.boognish_bear said:The U.S. Navy has established a Force of so far at least 12 Surface Ships in the Middle East to Defend the Region against and Respond to an Iranian Attack, with the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) currently operating in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea with an Escort of 6 Arleigh… pic.twitter.com/dGN7qxVbSq
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 1, 2024
If.whiterock said:LIke I said, the war has already started. At the moment, others are doing the fighting for us. If we help them win, we won't have to engage directly at all.Sam Lowry said:Like I said, gradually leading into war.whiterock said:you are consistent with your faulty premise.Sam Lowry said:What other plan is there? I've asked half a dozen times, and you can't tell me. Some version of Lend-Lease? That's what you do when you're gradually leading up to war. Or maybe you aren't ready commit and want to see what happens. Which is it?FLBear5630 said:You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.Sam Lowry said:No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?FLBear5630 said:This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...Sam Lowry said:The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.FLBear5630 said:NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.Sam Lowry said:3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.FLBear5630 said:No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.Sam Lowry said:1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.FLBear5630 said:Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...historian said:
NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.
52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump
2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.
Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.
Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."
We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.
Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.
It's like if I asked you in 1941 what the end game is and whether we're going to war with Germany and Japan. You say "What are you talking about? Why would we go to war with Germany and Japan? What does that have to do with anything?"
It has to do with long term strategy. Lend-Lease is not a strategy for winning a war. So if you're not at least thinking about NATO troops, you're not thinking.
We did Lend-Lease because we realized war was inevitable and we needed time to ramp up mobilization, and we waited quite a bit too long to do it.
We have learned our lessons and are ahead of the curve this go-around.
WW3 is not something we can avoid. It has already started. The only question is where we intend to win it.
https://apnews.com/article/belarus-china-military-drill-poland-8558b0e413351caa89cfbb3c4441f016
Do people not remember a few weeks ago when Iran launched hundreds of rockets directly from Iran to Israel? Also, they have been supplying rockets to Hamas & Hezbollah which those terrorist groups have used to attack Israel indiscriminately for years. This is common knowledge.
No doubt, I am making more of a point on balancing the carrot with the stick. To do that, you have to have foreign investment. I don't expect that we would be able to have the same free hand Pershing did.whiterock said:and let's not forget that Pershing arrived in the Philippines during the 19th century. Rules of engagement were quite a bit less encumbered than they are today.nein51 said:FLBear5630 said:Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."nein51 said:historian said:
Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.
Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.
Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.
Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.
All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.
He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.
The Philippines is wildly different than the ME. But your point it taken
I agree. Israel doesn't need to make up attacks to start a war. Pretty much happens daily.historian said:
Do people not remember a few weeks ago when Iran launched hundreds of rockets directly from Iran to Israel? Also, they have been supplying rockets to Hamas & Hezbollah which those terrorist groups have used to attack Israel indiscriminately for years. This is common knowledge.
Except for Natanz and now their growing stockpile of 60-80% enriched uranium which likely violates the NPT. And the zero visibility to their ballistic missile program and known delivery system efforts which they've been dodging from the outset. Sabotage and covert efforts have been the primary roadblocks to Iran's program to build a nuke.Sam Lowry said:There was nothing illegal about it. But to answer your question, we knew because they substantially cooperated with the UN. Now that they're kicking out the most qualified inspectors, it's not so certain.ATL Bear said:What a dumbass comment. How else would we have known they've been illegally enriching uranium?Sam Lowry said:That is great. Lovely to know after 15 years of you insisting the whole country was riddled with secret doomsday laboratories under every rock.ATL Bear said:They are all known.Sam Lowry said:The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.boognish_bear said:Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024
Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn
🚨 Breaking: Two senior H×mas leaders in Gaza were eliminated 👇 pic.twitter.com/CeqstikQuV
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) August 2, 2024
Were they signatories to that treaty? If not then they are not bound by it.
However, to your point, when dangerous actors have access to nukes or nuclear materials it is a threat to everyone. It is in the interest of all civilization to remove such threats.
Although it's usually not about nukes, Israel does that every time they fight Iran or one of their proxies. It amazes me that some people cannot see that broader truth. I suspect they are blinded by their bigotry.
However, to your point, when dangerous actors have access to nukes or nuclear materials it is a threat to everyone. It is in the interest of all civilization to remove such threats.
Although it's usually not about nukes, Israel does that every time they fight Iran or one of their proxies. It amazes me that some people cannot see that broader truth. I suspect they are blinded by their bigotry.
Again, the NPT is a treaty, not a law.ATL Bear said:Except for Natanz and now their growing stockpile of 60-80% enriched uranium which likely violates the NPT. And the zero visibility to their ballistic missile program and known delivery system efforts which they've been dodging from the outset. Sabotage and covert efforts have been the primary roadblocks to Iran's program to build a nuke.Sam Lowry said:There was nothing illegal about it. But to answer your question, we knew because they substantially cooperated with the UN. Now that they're kicking out the most qualified inspectors, it's not so certain.ATL Bear said:What a dumbass comment. How else would we have known they've been illegally enriching uranium?Sam Lowry said:That is great. Lovely to know after 15 years of you insisting the whole country was riddled with secret doomsday laboratories under every rock.ATL Bear said:They are all known.Sam Lowry said:The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.boognish_bear said:Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024
Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn