"Hassan Nasrallah was a military commander who defended Syria's Christians during a very difficult period.

Eleven years ago, during the Syrian Civil War, the rebel forces launched an attack on the town of Maaloula, which is predominantly Christian and speaks a primarily Western Neo-Aramaic language.

"Militants from the Al-Nusra terrorist organization stormed into Maalula. They took nuns (from the Convent of Saint Tecla) hostage and ruthlessly murdered the local Christian population, and any attempts by international humanitarian organizations to bargain and negotiate with the terrorists failed...

The "horror" in Maalula continued until the Syrian army was aided by the the Lebanon's Hezbollah, led by Nasrallah, the war correspondent reminded.

"His political will and military talent were instrumental in the liberation of Maaloula in 2014. This important shrine for Christians worldwide was liberated by Hezbollah, despite its own considerable losses. ... The nuns, who had been held hostage for almost a year, were finally rescued from terrible captivity."

Simple explanations usually don't adequately explain a complicated world.

Realitybites said:

---

"Hassan Nasrallah was a military commander who defended Syria's Christians during a very difficult period.

Eleven years ago, during the Syrian Civil War, the rebel forces launched an attack on the town of Maaloula, which is predominantly Christian and speaks a primarily Western Neo-Aramaic language.

"Militants from the Al-Nusra terrorist organization stormed into Maalula. They took nuns (from the Convent of Saint Tecla) hostage and ruthlessly murdered the local Christian population, and any attempts by international humanitarian organizations to bargain and negotiate with the terrorists failed...

The "horror" in Maalula continued until the Syrian army was aided by the the Lebanon's Hezbollah, led by Nasrallah, the war correspondent reminded.

"His political will and military talent were instrumental in the liberation of Maaloula in 2014. This important shrine for Christians worldwide was liberated by Hezbollah, despite its own considerable losses. ... The nuns, who had been held hostage for almost a year, were finally rescued from terrible captivity."

Simple explanations usually don't adequately explain a complicated world.

---

Syrian Christians (10% of the population) were/are allied with the Alowite Regime in Syria. Alowites (13% of the population) are a nominally muslim sect of Shiites. So he didn't really "protect" them. He allied with them as part of maintaining a pro-Iranian Shiite regime in a 75% Sunni country.

Demographics of Lebanon are even less stable. There are four major parts: Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze. Conceptually speaking, at independence the majority Christians got the government, the Sunnis got the economy, the Druze got the mountains, and the Shiites got the stony ground. Iran waded in to support the Shiites and destabilized the Lebanese state.

Christians remain a plurality of the population in Lebanon......

It was my understanding that the Christians did not maintain a majority yet they controlled the government and refused to take a census count because they knew they were not the majority. That's 1975. Not sure what happened since.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

It was my understanding that the Christians did not maintain a majority yet they controlled the government and refused to take a census count because they knew they were not the majority. That's 1975. Not sure what happened since.

---

Basically,

Seats in Parliament are divided out by Religion...not necessarily what the real percentage in the country is.

Most seem to think Christians are now a minority in Lebanon

[Lebanon's 18 recognized religious sects are all recognized in Parliament. The Parliament, with its 128 seats, is divided equally among Muslims and Christians]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-263B-5806

[Lebanon has not held a census since 1932]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

Redbrickbear said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

It was my understanding that the Christians did not maintain a majority yet they controlled the government and refused to take a census count because they knew they were not the majority. That's 1975. Not sure what happened since.

---

Basically,

Seats in Parliament are divided out by Religion...not necessarily what the real percentage in the country is.

Most seem to think Christians are now a minority in Lebanon

[Lebanon's 18 recognized religious sects are all recognized in Parliament. The Parliament, with its 128 seats, is divided equally among Muslims and Christians]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-263B-5806

[Lebanon has not held a census since 1932]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

---

Muslims in aggregate indeed outnumber Christians. But that's not terribly instructive. The Shiites and Sunnis do NOT act in tandem, even moreso after the rise of Hizballah. You have to think of Lebanese religious politics not as a binary, but as a four-piece puzzle. The Lebanese Civil war was not a muslim/christian thing. It was a four-way buzz saw = Falangist (Christian) militia, Amal (Sunni) militia, Hizballah (Shiite), and the Druze just hiding out in their mountain fastness trying to make sure they didn't get overrun by the other three. Indeed, that's the import of Iranian involvement with Hizballah. The Shiites were the poorest of the four pieces, in the least arable areas, the dispossessed/downtrodden, etc....largely excluded from a defacto Christian/Sunni coalition govt. Iranian support allowed Shiites military power to punch far above their weight, becoming arguably the most powerful faction of all. Ergo, the total destruction of Hizballah will, all by itself, fundamentally alter the internal dynamics of Lebanese politics.

it will also cast a shadow on the Iranian project in Syria, at least indirectly.

all that said, if you look at Lebanon the way it actually functions, Christians are a plurality....the largest of four separate groups, each of which look at the other as a rival more than an ally.

Back in the Civil War of 1975 I wonder how the four sects decided who to shoot and who was friendly?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Back in the Civil War of 1975 I wonder how the four sects decided who to shoot and who was friendly?

---

I'm sure it was pretty wild…and it went on for 15 years


Their militia groups did have style

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

At least you showed your work on the rewrite.

---

I'm listening to guys who were there and who understood the negotiations better than anyone else around today.

Your revisionism has gone mainstream with the neocons, but that doesn't change what it is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

At least you showed your work on the rewrite.

---

I'm listening to guys who were there and who understood the negotiations better than anyone else around today.

Your revisionism has gone mainstream with the neocons, but that doesn't change what it is.

---

There's a big difference between the unwinding of the Soviet Union and its actual collapse. The latter surprised most. The State guys wanting to spike a football because they showed up when the battle was almost over is a laughable exercise of diplomatic conceit. Not to mention favorable revisionism.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

At least you showed your work on the rewrite.

---

I'm listening to guys who were there and who understood the negotiations better than anyone else around today.

Your revisionism has gone mainstream with the neocons, but that doesn't change what it is.

---

There's a big difference between the unwinding of the Soviet Union and its actual collapse. The latter surprised most. The State guys wanting to spike a football because they showed up when the battle was almost over is a laughable exercise of diplomatic conceit. Not to mention favorable revisionism.

---

I don't know if you read the articles, but no one is spiking the football when it comes to the collapse. They all saw it as something to be avoided. The point is that the winding down of the Cold War happened independently and prior to the collapse. Russia was willing and eager to work with us. We repaid them with lie after lie until we reached the present impasse. The arrogant revisionism of our historical narrative has everything to do with that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

At least you showed your work on the rewrite.

---

I'm listening to guys who were there and who understood the negotiations better than anyone else around today.

Your revisionism has gone mainstream with the neocons, but that doesn't change what it is.

---

There's a big difference between the unwinding of the Soviet Union and its actual collapse. The latter surprised most. The State guys wanting to spike a football because they showed up when the battle was almost over is a laughable exercise of diplomatic conceit. Not to mention favorable revisionism.

---

I don't know if you read the articles, but no one is spiking the football when it comes to the collapse. They all saw it as something to be avoided. The point is that the winding down of the Cold War happened independently and prior to the collapse. Russia was willing and eager to work with us. We repaid them with lie after lie until we reached the present impasse. The arrogant revisionism of our historical narrative has everything to do with that.

---

Rinse repeat. Revision and the obligatory swipe at the big bad USA. Maybe their interests weren't ours? It's been over 30 years and they're still a despotic, corrupt regime. Russia gonna Russia and you think it's our fault. I wish you gave your own country even a fraction of the credit you give our adversaries, especially Russia.

And the winding down was chaotic and populist driven.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

The Israel lobby has proven they have absolute control over my government.

Pretty much anything... but especially middle east foreign policy has to be approved by them.

My proof is AIPAC, a foreign lobby, openly bragging about a 100% success rate in congressional elections.

This is probably Israel's way of buying hearts and minds of the survivors with OUR money.

One thing is damn sure, sending $300M to a territory they are just going to blow up again in a months does nothing to make your children or grandchildren more prosperous and free.

The whole thing is just one giant money laundering operation and they are scamming the churls, aka the American tax payer

The_barBEARian said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

The Israel lobby has proven they have absolute control over my government.

Pretty much anything... but especially middle east foreign policy has to be approved by them.

My proof is AIPAC, a foreign lobby, openly bragging about a 100% success rate in congressional elections.

This is probably Israel's way of buying hearts and minds of the survivors with OUR money.

One thing is damn sure, sending $300M to a territory they are just going to blow up again in a months does nothing to make your children or grandchildren more prosperous and free.

The whole thing is just one giant money laundering operation and they are scamming the churls, aka the American tax payer

---

Are you the dictator now? It's your government?

The_barBEARian said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

The Israel lobby has proven they have absolute control over my government.

Pretty much anything... but especially middle east foreign policy has to be approved by them.

My proof is AIPAC, a foreign lobby, openly bragging about a 100% success rate in congressional elections.

This is probably Israel's way of buying hearts and minds of the survivors with OUR money.

One thing is damn sure, sending $300M to a territory they are just going to blow up again in a months does nothing to make your children or grandchildren more prosperous and free.

The whole thing is just one giant money laundering operation and they are scamming the churls, aka the American tax payer

---

I've never met a Republican who supported the idea of sending money to Gaza or the West Bank. But there are plenty of dems who openly campaign for sending money to the terrorist regimes.

I think you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

Since everything must be approved by "the Jews".. maybe you can explain why they wanted Obama to give billions in cash to Iran?

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

The Israel lobby has proven they have absolute control over my government.

Pretty much anything... but especially middle east foreign policy has to be approved by them.

My proof is AIPAC, a foreign lobby, openly bragging about a 100% success rate in congressional elections.

This is probably Israel's way of buying hearts and minds of the survivors with OUR money.

One thing is damn sure, sending $300M to a territory they are just going to blow up again in a months does nothing to make your children or grandchildren more prosperous and free.

The whole thing is just one giant money laundering operation and they are scamming the churls, aka the American tax payer

---

I've never met a Republican who supported the idea of sending money to Gaza or the West Bank. But there are plenty of dems who openly campaign for sending money to the terrorist regimes.

I think you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

Since everything must be approved by "the Jews".. maybe you can explain why they wanted Obama to give billions in cash to Iran?

---

Why was Netanyahu giving money to Hamas?

I can't explain the inner workings of their money laundering operation.

I just know the loser is the American tax payer... everytime

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

The Israel lobby has proven they have absolute control over my government.

Pretty much anything... but especially middle east foreign policy has to be approved by them.

My proof is AIPAC, a foreign lobby, openly bragging about a 100% success rate in congressional elections.

This is probably Israel's way of buying hearts and minds of the survivors with OUR money.

One thing is damn sure, sending $300M to a territory they are just going to blow up again in a months does nothing to make your children or grandchildren more prosperous and free.

The whole thing is just one giant money laundering operation and they are scamming the churls, aka the American tax payer

---

Are you the dictator now? It's your government?

---

No.

Far from it.

I am a disgruntled, bitter, depressed middle-aged peon.

And even my ability to be disgruntled is too much freedom for this government.

A statement from our Jewish Secretary of State...

Quote:

---

Based on initial reports, Israel "effectively defeated this attack," with the help of the U.S. and other partners, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said, adding that "the entire world should condemn" the Iranian strike.

---

The irony as thousands of bombs fall on Lebanese civilians yet no mention.

ShooterTX said:

---

I can't explain the inner workings of their money laundering operation.



So in other words... this is nothing more than your bull**** theory!
No evidence. No data. No explanations.

This is just a BS theory that is driven by your irrational hatred of "the Jews".

Thanks for finally admitting it.

---

"Bibi money to Hamas"

Google it.

Secretaries of State,Treasury, Homeland Security and Attorney General for starters. That is a very powerful lobby.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Secretaries of State,Treasury, Homeland Security and Attorney General for starters. That is a very powerful lobby.

---

Oh I see.... so anyone who is Jewish is someone who wants to control & use America for evil Jewish purposes. Wow... is your real name Goebbels?

I don't give a rip if your Baptist ( before it became MAGA pulpit) , Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Wars being fought over "our God" ate ridiculous.

It reminds me of Nam where it was business as usual in Saigon while thousands died in the jungles. For nothing. .

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A statement from our Jewish Secretary of State...

Quote:

---

Based on initial reports, Israel "effectively defeated this attack," with the help of the U.S. and other partners, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said, adding that "the entire world should condemn" the Iranian strike.

---

The irony as thousands of bombs fall on Lebanese civilians yet no mention.

---

I don't think it's irony. Iran, Lebanon,, Gaza all have been launching rockets into Israel for a while now. I think it is just called war.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I don't give a rip if your Baptist ( before it became MAGA pulpit) , Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Wars being fought over "our God" ate ridiculous.

It reminds me of Nam where it was business as usual in Saigon while thousands died in the jungles. For nothing. .

---

Come on man

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Can one of you Jew slaves explain this to me:

US State Department announces America to donate almost $336 million to Gaza, West Bank


So the Jews bankrupt us and destroy the value of our money to fund their military. Then they make us pay to clean up the mess they made? Are you ok with this? You ****ing idiots have probably never received more than the COVID stimulus from your own government.

---

Can you provide any evidence that the money was demanded by "the Jews"?
Seems more likely that the terrorist-loving democrats decided to give our money to the terrorist breeding grounds.
Unless you expect us to believe that Talib, Ohmar, Ellison and the rest of the terrorist sympathizers are going to submit to the demands of "the Jews"?

---

That's the Hamas Caucus.

All bigotry is irrational

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions

Prejudice: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
b(1)
: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

I'm old enough to remember when it was predjudice that was criticized. When did the left do this bait and switch, and why?

Curious definition of bigot.

bigot (noun)
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Bigotry and prejudice are pretty much synonyms. It depends on how the term is used.

I'm not sure if this is an example of a bait and switch. The Left are Marxists and they like to distort language and pervert reality in their pursuit of their goals, mainly power. So they care about "equity" instead of "equality", cannot define "woman" or "man", redefine "marriage" to include same sex relationships, like to accuse people of fake "racism" or "sexism" for adhering to reality, attack people of faith for promoting reality and morality, and so on. It's all smoke and mirrors because they hate all norms, science, and reality since all argue against their irrational pursuits of power that cannot be justified honestly.

"Reality is not optional."

A Jew on Jewish Leftists:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/09/american_yidiots_on_steroids.html

"Kosovo and Iraq would be examples. Of course you already know that most of our wars are covert/intelligence or proxy wars, so your question obscures the real issue."

Exactly how is Kosovo an example of a peoples engaging in "peace, commerce, and honest friendships" who found themselves facing US troops?