Netanyahu said "we are at war,"

399,205 Views | 6384 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by Sam Lowry
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Generations looking down on the younger generations has been going on forever. I'm a Gen Xer and remember in the 90s being told how we were unmotivated and only interested in immediate gratification. Now we are saying the same things about millennials and Gen Zers. It's just a continuous cycle.

The millennials and Gen Zers that I have personally worked with have had a great work ethic and dedication.

https://arapahoelibraries.org/blogs/post/generational-blame-a-brief-history/

The phenomenon of adults blaming the younger generation is a recurring, and exhausting, theme throughout history, reflecting the perennial generation gap and societal changes. From the ancient Greeks lamenting the perceived moral decay among youth to the countercultural clashes of the 1960s, each era witnesses elders expressing concerns about the values and behaviors of their successors. Often rooted in a combination of nostalgia for the past and a resistance to change, this intergenerational tension manifests in critiques of everything from fashion and music to technology and work ethic. While the criticisms may vary, the pattern remains consistenta cycle of generational blame that is both a reflection of cultural evolution and a reminder of the challenges inherent in bridging the gap between different phases of life and societal progress.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
Socrates
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Redbrickbear said:

FLBear5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Worst defeat for Israel in decades.

Massive counterattacks will have to be made or other Muslim groups will be encouraged to join the attacks on Israel.

US taxpayers will be called upon yet again to supply billions of dollars in aid. This time to Israel.




Serious question…we give them billions in modern weaponry and Abrams tanks…yet they still have trouble oppressing some Palestinians with rocks, AK-47s, and home made rockets? How is that possible…





Shouldn't help Israel, right. Stop all funding….


Why should US taxpayers continue to fund a Jewish supremacist racial apartheid state?

One that continues to engage in settler-colonialism in the West Bank…in clear violation of international law?
We shouldn't. I want to make the distinction between the the Israeli citizens and the current govt. That govt is absolutely horrible. Bibi is a horrible man like Trump, trying to stay out of jail whlle he effs up the country. That settlement crap is just so wrong. They are involved in Genocide. Time to cut Israel OFF. NO aid, No munitions. Go at it alone.

Go ahead and show me the genocide. I'll wait. I'll remind you before you start Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a nationality.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


So, is Russia supplying tech, weapons and munitions to Iran just as bad as the US helping Ukraine? Or is Putin justified in this as well...
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

muddybrazos said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

muddybrazos said:

boognish_bear said:


This has been Bibi's plan all along.



He knows he can do anything he wants as USA will cover his ass. We taxpayers are the his Iron Dome.
Yep, pretty much. He also knows that thie boomer generation is the last one that will really support Israel like that and moving forward there will be less support for their wars.
I'm a boomer and have ZERO time for Israel, unlike my sainted mother who always invokes "god's choose people? Screw them.
Gods chosen people do not reject Christ. God's chosen accept Christ as their messiah.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In a rational actor model he's probably well within reason. They are a large scale ally.
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jordan has to be nervous being caught between two foolish nations.

I think Iran knows they better not strike in a meaningful way against Israel for fear of losing much more such as neuclear growth and oil. Their statements since the assasination have been bluster.

If Iran isn't bluffing they would coordinate with Hezbollah but I'm not so sure Hezbollah is wanting to sting the big boy.
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Sounds like something a "greatest" ally would say, doesnt it?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

boognish_bear said:



Sounds like something a "greatest" ally would say, doesnt it?
Says the man that wants to force a Nation to do what it doesn't want to do because the US give a lot of aid. Don't see a little pot/kettle?
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

The_barBEARian said:

boognish_bear said:



Sounds like something a "greatest" ally would say, doesnt it?
Says the man that wants to force a Nation to do what it doesn't want to do because the US give a lot of aid. Don't see a little pot/kettle?
IF we are giving them billions of our taxpayer money they should be told what to do. Instead its the other way around bc Israel has a sex tape of everyone in congress.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

FLBear5630 said:

The_barBEARian said:

boognish_bear said:



Sounds like something a "greatest" ally would say, doesnt it?
Says the man that wants to force a Nation to do what it doesn't want to do because the US give a lot of aid. Don't see a little pot/kettle?
IF we are giving them billions of our taxpayer money they should be told what to do. Instead its the other way around bc Israel has a sex tape of everyone in congress.
Sounds like something a "greatest" ally would say, doesnt it?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?


When they say the quiet part out loud. They want to make their problems YOUR problems.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Even if that's an accurate quote, that was 44 years ago and Bibi wasn't P.M. a lot has changed since then. Also, the context of when that was said is important. I don't the particulars but I do that the Iran hostage crisis was ongoing at the time. It also was another important election year with the economy in bad shape just like it is now: stagflation.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:



When they say the quiet part out loud. They want to make their problems YOUR problems.
Interesting that they are admitting it that openly. Lebensraum for the chosen people by moving Gaza to Detroit.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Meanwhile we still dont have a southern border.....

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I've never seen a mob of Anglos act like this in my lifetime.
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NY at its finest
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Sooner or later one of our naval units is going to get hit.

Not enough sea room and too much clutter confusing radar vectoring of inbounds.

Suspect our admirals understand the risks involved; as they have seen the havoc drones and missile have done to ships of the Russian navy in the Black Sea.

However Biden ain't scared……he's a short timer who can't remember what day it is .

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting take…


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Osodecentx said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

boognish_bear said:


Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

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.


Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?
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.


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.
it's not entirely a bad thing that American politicians consider the reaction of the American people when thinking about foreign policy.........

Maybe. But their first priority should be what is best for the country not what's best for their poll numbers.
Even if your policy is right, you still have to know where is the public on the issue. That will tell you what is possible and what is not. It will tell you what it will cost to get the public to where they will support what they want to do. And even when you get the public to support your policy, you still have to sell it to them, every day, or they will tire of it. That is particularly true with respect to war in a democracy. Lots & lots of public persuasion went on during WWII in both Britain and America. People tend to want peace and have to be persuaded to continue a war, particularly a long one where it's harder to define and see progress. It's only the dictators who can do whatever they want to do short of food-riots.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

historian said:

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.
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...

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


1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.
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.

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.
3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.
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.
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.
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...
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?

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.
You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.
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?

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.
you are consistent with your faulty premise.

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
Like I said, Iranian actions are gradually leading into war.
FIFY
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hamas names Yahya Sinwar as its leader. He's the architect of the Oct. 7 attacks. At least there's no disguise as to what they are.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-names-gaza-leader-yahya-sinwar-chief-following-haniyeh-killing-statement-2024-08-06/
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Hamas names Yahya Sinwar as its leader. He's the architect of the Oct. 7 attacks. At least there's no disguise as to what they are.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-names-gaza-leader-yahya-sinwar-chief-following-haniyeh-killing-statement-2024-08-06/

I mean, unless you're a retar8 they never hid who they were. There are just some utterly naive people in this country.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nein51 said:

ATL Bear said:

Hamas names Yahya Sinwar as its leader. He's the architect of the Oct. 7 attacks. At least there's no disguise as to what they are.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-names-gaza-leader-yahya-sinwar-chief-following-haniyeh-killing-statement-2024-08-06/

I mean, unless you're a retar8 they never hid who they were. There are just some utterly naive people in this country.
Well, for those idiots who need it literally spelled out for them, here we are.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

Jordan has to be nervous being caught between two foolish nations.

I think Iran knows they better not strike in a meaningful way against Israel for fear of losing much more such as neuclear growth and oil. Their statements since the assasination have been bluster.

If Iran isn't bluffing they would coordinate with Hezbollah but I'm not so sure Hezbollah is wanting to sting the big boy.

Hezbollah has been firing rockets to further deplete Israel's air defenses. Iran's next attack will be bigger and more difficult to repel than the test run in April.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Jordan has to be nervous being caught between two foolish nations.

I think Iran knows they better not strike in a meaningful way against Israel for fear of losing much more such as neuclear growth and oil. Their statements since the assasination have been bluster.

If Iran isn't bluffing they would coordinate with Hezbollah but I'm not so sure Hezbollah is wanting to sting the big boy.

Hezbollah has been firing rockets to further deplete Israel's air defenses. Iran's next attack will be bigger and more difficult to repel than the test run in April.

Counter argument is that Iran's leadership is full of it and never commits to an attack...

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They're in a corner. They know the West always interprets restraint as weakness, and they know Netanyahu is determined to escalate. The assassinations and other mischief won't stop until Israel gets what it thinks it wants.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iran to Hezbollah - Do it
Hezbollah to Iran - NO, you do it
Houthi - What are you guys waiting on?
Iran - You do it
Houthi - NO, you do it If we do it our towns will look like Gaza
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep....kind of feels like Iran has had a "let's not FAFO" awakening.

Surely they will do something though. Maybe they will avoid civilian sites...hopefully.
First Page Last Page
Page 151 of 183
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.