FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Iran informed Israel through a foreign mediator that it will not respond to Israel's attack.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

This is an exit ramp. Even Iran is figuring it out that war is not in anyone's best interest Only true psychos like Putin and NKorea seem to want it.

---

Iran's leadership knows a large scale war would destabilize their regime

They would lose and it would cause a general overthrow of their government at home

It would be both a foreign policy and domestic disaster for them

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Iran informed Israel through a foreign mediator that it will not respond to Israel's attack.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

This is an exit ramp. Even Iran is figuring it out that war is not in anyone's best interest Only true psychos like Putin and NKorea seem to want it.

---

Once Trump gets back in there and ends the war in Ukraine, we will all see who the real psychos are... they live among us unfortunately.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Iran informed Israel through a foreign mediator that it will not respond to Israel's attack.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

This is an exit ramp. Even Iran is figuring it out that war is not in anyone's best interest Only true psychos like Putin and NKorea seem to want it.

---

Hope both sides take it

Israel left the door open to an end to hostilities.

They also haven't locked the door to their weapons stores that can seriously damage Iran and destabilize the regime.

Israel using several female fighter pilots in the strikes against the Islamist regime which has subjugated and enslaved the women of Iran is truly poetic justice. pic.twitter.com/03W4U59Gna

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Land changes over time... and it never has anything to do with someone driving a F-350 instead of a Prius.

---

I have to admit,"climate change is proof that modern Israel has God's blessing" wasn't what I was expecting, even given your vehicular disclaimer.

Modern Isreal is a creation of the United Nations. It is the antichrist's stage. Zero reason we should bankrupt ourselves on its behalf.

---

A small part of me feels sympathy for Shooter and historian because when they move on to the afterlife they are going to realize they were Satan's puppets the entire time by supporting his armies on earth.

---

Lol

No I never supported any Muslims or Democrats... so I'll be just fine.

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Land changes over time... and it never has anything to do with someone driving a F-350 instead of a Prius.

---

I have to admit,"climate change is proof that modern Israel has God's blessing" wasn't what I was expecting, even given your vehicular disclaimer.

Modern Isreal is a creation of the United Nations. It is the antichrist's stage. Zero reason we should bankrupt ourselves on its behalf.

---

A small part of me feels sympathy for Shooter and historian because when they move on to the afterlife they are going to realize they were Satan's puppets the entire time by supporting his armies on earth.

---

Lol

No I never supported any Muslims or Democrats... so I'll be just fine.

---

Ditto!

🚨 Breaking: Israel 🇮🇱 reportedly destroyed all the radars of Russian S-400 and S-300 systems in Iran 🇮🇷, leaving Iran's entire airspace blinded to future attacks

Source: @sherrwood9 pic.twitter.com/6aoOOrMAxZ

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) October 26, 2024

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Land changes over time... and it never has anything to do with someone driving a F-350 instead of a Prius.

---

I have to admit,"climate change is proof that modern Israel has God's blessing" wasn't what I was expecting, even given your vehicular disclaimer.

Modern Isreal is a creation of the United Nations. It is the antichrist's stage. Zero reason we should bankrupt ourselves on its behalf.

---

A small part of me feels sympathy for Shooter and historian because when they move on to the afterlife they are going to realize they were Satan's puppets the entire time by supporting his armies on earth.

---

Lol

No I never supported any Muslims or Democrats... so I'll be just fine.

---

I think people who think they really know what the afterlife is like and are arrogant enough to tell others will be very surprised.

Always amazes me the number of people that believe they are right and willing to say it without knowing anything about the people they are discussing, usually religion, finances or how they live their life. Amazing... Seems to happen alot on this site

For those unclear on the basics, this is the West Bank, not Gaza. Hamas does not run the West Bank. The entire world -- and all international institutions -- regards Israeli occupation of the West Bank illegal.

The Haaretz details some of the sickness:https://t.co/LfGB60iWZP pic.twitter.com/vyVUy2WAGz

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 27, 2024

Excellent article from a month ago explaining Israel's objectives & actions in this war. The occasion was Netanyahu's UN speech & Israel taking out Nasrallah. It should be common sense but the Leftists won't agree. They will be clutching their pearls and falling on their feinting couches!

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/09/israel_stops_taking_counsel_from_the_angel_of_death.html

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

I agree, but would note the Japanese have done that self-examination and adjusted their foreign policy accordingly

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's a silly myth. There is no evidence that FDR or anyone else in the US government wanted an attack on Pearl Harbor.

---

On the contrary. Our strategy was to maneuver them into firing the first shot, and that's exactly what we did.

---

Absolutely correct

Roosevelt cut off all US oil exports to Japan thereby forcing the Japanese to get their oil from the Dutch East
Indies.

Knowing full well such an invasion would result in a declaration of war from the Dutch and Great Britain.

Realizing the British and Dutch militaries were mired in Europe against Germany, Japanese military planners correctly determined that only the US Pacific Fleet could stop them.

So the Japanese determined upon the risky attack on Pearl Harbor. A horrible blunder as the US carriers were not in port and the Japanese pilots failed to attack the huge oil tanks nearby on shore. If those oil tanks had been destroyed the US fleet would have been forced to withdraw to the West Coast.

In the case of Germany, Roosevelt had authorized the US Navy to ATTACK German submarines months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was providing a huge amount of supplies to Great Britain. Even to the point of giving the British 50 American destroyers. Vital in Britains war against German submarines.

---

Once again, this is cherry picking information in hindsight to fit a theory.

The chain of events is accurate, implying motivation or more that it was a strategy to get the US into the war in the Pacific is pure speculation. Pearl Harbor was a awful big price to pay and one FDR had no control over the outcome. As you say, the Japanese pilots go one mile inland and destroy the oil tanks game over.

Japan has already fired such a shot before Pearl Harbor joining with Germany and Italy in 1939. They invaded IndoChina in 40. If FDR wanted to enter a war, Japan gave him several opportunities without sacrificing Pearl Harbor! No one thought Hawaii was the target, they thought Philippines, which happened at same time. I disagree FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to enter the war. That was a surprise. As for Germany, they invaded all of Europe before we did a thing! Churchill was begging FDR to help. You guys are rewriting history to fit your pre-conceived biases. We are not that smart, no one is

---

Never said or implied that Roosevelt KNEW in advance of Japanese intentions to attack Pearl Harbor.

He didn't.

All US intelligence officers believed the Japanese would begin the war with an attack on the US military installations in the Philippines. No one from Roosevelt, down to Admiral Kimmel or General Short believed the Japanese had the capability to reach and attack Pearl Harbor. The Philippines were attacked as well however ; approximately 24 hours after Pearl Harbor.

However there can be little doubt that Roosevelt manipulated Japan into attacking the US first in order to provoke a totally unwilling American public to enter the war.

He simply thought the war would begin in the Philippines.

Roosevelt's provocation against nazi Germany was even more blatant. By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor ; Hitler had come to the conclusion that the United States Navy had already been at war against them for several months and might as well declare war and get everything out in the open.

---

Of course, Germany would have preferred the US to stay neutral or take the Axis side, but by the time the US Navy got involved or the lend-lease started Germany had invaded pretty much all of Europe and the Japanese had joined them. Roosevelt did not need any manipulated scenarios in 1941 pre-Pearl Harbor. He ended Nuetrality in Jan 1941 with Lend-Lease. The US Navy attacked Germany in April 1941 and the Germans attacked the US in September. There was no need to orchestrate.

---

Silly rebuttal.

Whether or not you believe there was a ' need ' Roosevelt 's action of cutting all US oil exports to Japan absolutely forced them to invade the Dutch East Indies in order to replace that oil.

As Japan did not produce any oil on their home islands . And without oil the entire Japanese military would have been unable to function in its war in China.

---

So we were obligated to sell Japan the means to continue its war on Manchuria?
So to prevent war, we have to facilitate it?

---

Roosevelt simply decided China was more important than American lives.

So after hundreds of thousands of US dead.........
China become communist.

So how can any rational individual believe Roosevelt made the right choice ?

---

Again, we see the implicit presumption that America has a moral obligation to stand aside and let other countries do whatever they hell they want so long as they do not cross our orders, and that such will ensure a long-lasting peace.

How can any rational individual believe that the pathway to peace and prosperity for the American people was to let Japan build a "greater east asia co-propsperity sphere" all the way up to our shores?

---

Japan never had any desire to even go to Australia, much less to our shores.
I never said they did. But they did infringe on Australian interests in the Pacific rather significantly and would/could have taken Austrialia in the even it refused to accede to Japanese hegemony in the region.

By to same token, why the the US feel entitled to make the Philippines our colony ? We even implemented concentration camps where thousands of civilians died. None of our actions in that region bear close inspection.
We didn't "make" the Philippines our colony. We got it by virtue of winning the Spanish-American War. And 50 years later all we had was a handful of island territories in the Pacific. Because we were not then nor ever have been a colonial power in any meaningful sense of the term.

You insist on a double standard, in regards to Japan.
No slam, as with with your CIA indoctrination it is perfectly understandable.
How much of Asia did Japan have to invade before they have any responsibility for launching a surprise attack against us to drag us into WWII?

---

You have a completely crackpot take on this.

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

Curious, how was Ukraine the US fault or avoidable? Ukraine and the others wanted to align west and have access to the western economy and security. NATO and the US said no, and still say no. Russia caused this mess with their inferiority complex. They got the exact results they wanted to avoid - Sweden and Finland in NATO and Ukraine going to be fast-tracked. None of that happens if Putin just took Crimea and was happy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

Curious, how was Ukraine the US fault or avoidable? Ukraine and the others wanted to align west and have access to the western economy and security. NATO and the US said no, and still say no. Russia caused this mess with their inferiority complex. They got the exact results they wanted to avoid - Sweden and Finland in NATO and Ukraine going to be fast-tracked. None of that happens if Putin just took Crimea and was happy.

---

Most of it didn't happen, period.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

Curious, how was Ukraine the US fault or avoidable? Ukraine and the others wanted to align west and have access to the western economy and security.

---

You keep shilling for that State Department/CIA talking point

In truth half of Ukraine's voting population did not want to align with DC-Brussels and consistently voted for the pro-Moscow party (The Party of Regions)

They even won the election in 2010 by 49.55% of the vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Indeed a various points its been the largest political party in Ukraine (until Zelensky banned it)

[The Party of Regions ,Partiia rehioniv, is a political party in Ukraine formed in late 1997 that became the largest party in Ukraine between 2006 and 2014.]


Ukraine was always a divided country between its capital region and western provinces who wanted to align with the EU-USA and its eastern provinces that wanted to align with Russia

Obviously both DC and Moscow have engaged in taking advantage of those internal fault lines to try and pull the whole country into one or the other camp.

But its foolish and wrong to say that "all Ukrainians wanted to align with Russia" or to say "all Ukrainians wanted to align with the West"

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

Curious, how was Ukraine the US fault or avoidable? Ukraine and the others wanted to align west and have access to the western economy and security. NATO and the US said no, and still say no. Russia caused this mess with their inferiority complex. They got the exact results they wanted to avoid - Sweden and Finland in NATO and Ukraine going to be fast-tracked. None of that happens if Putin just took Crimea and was happy.

---

Most of it didn't happen, period.

---

Wow, Crimea is still Ukrainian. Russia didn't invade. Sweden and Finland are not in NATO.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

Are you implying that's news to you?

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

Everything Negative that happens or has happened is the fault of the US. Come on, you are behind...

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

That's a silly myth. There is no evidence that FDR or anyone else in the US government wanted an attack on Pearl Harbor.

---

On the contrary. Our strategy was to maneuver them into firing the first shot, and that's exactly what we did.

---

Absolutely correct

Roosevelt cut off all US oil exports to Japan thereby forcing the Japanese to get their oil from the Dutch East
Indies.

Knowing full well such an invasion would result in a declaration of war from the Dutch and Great Britain.

Realizing the British and Dutch militaries were mired in Europe against Germany, Japanese military planners correctly determined that only the US Pacific Fleet could stop them.

So the Japanese determined upon the risky attack on Pearl Harbor. A horrible blunder as the US carriers were not in port and the Japanese pilots failed to attack the huge oil tanks nearby on shore. If those oil tanks had been destroyed the US fleet would have been forced to withdraw to the West Coast.

In the case of Germany, Roosevelt had authorized the US Navy to ATTACK German submarines months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was providing a huge amount of supplies to Great Britain. Even to the point of giving the British 50 American destroyers. Vital in Britains war against German submarines.

---

Once again, this is cherry picking information in hindsight to fit a theory.

The chain of events is accurate, implying motivation or more that it was a strategy to get the US into the war in the Pacific is pure speculation. Pearl Harbor was a awful big price to pay and one FDR had no control over the outcome. As you say, the Japanese pilots go one mile inland and destroy the oil tanks game over.

Japan has already fired such a shot before Pearl Harbor joining with Germany and Italy in 1939. They invaded IndoChina in 40. If FDR wanted to enter a war, Japan gave him several opportunities without sacrificing Pearl Harbor! No one thought Hawaii was the target, they thought Philippines, which happened at same time. I disagree FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to enter the war. That was a surprise. As for Germany, they invaded all of Europe before we did a thing! Churchill was begging FDR to help. You guys are rewriting history to fit your pre-conceived biases. We are not that smart, no one is

---

Never said or implied that Roosevelt KNEW in advance of Japanese intentions to attack Pearl Harbor.

He didn't.

All US intelligence officers believed the Japanese would begin the war with an attack on the US military installations in the Philippines. No one from Roosevelt, down to Admiral Kimmel or General Short believed the Japanese had the capability to reach and attack Pearl Harbor. The Philippines were attacked as well however ; approximately 24 hours after Pearl Harbor.

However there can be little doubt that Roosevelt manipulated Japan into attacking the US first in order to provoke a totally unwilling American public to enter the war.

He simply thought the war would begin in the Philippines.

Roosevelt's provocation against nazi Germany was even more blatant. By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor ; Hitler had come to the conclusion that the United States Navy had already been at war against them for several months and might as well declare war and get everything out in the open.

---

Of course, Germany would have preferred the US to stay neutral or take the Axis side, but by the time the US Navy got involved or the lend-lease started Germany had invaded pretty much all of Europe and the Japanese had joined them. Roosevelt did not need any manipulated scenarios in 1941 pre-Pearl Harbor. He ended Nuetrality in Jan 1941 with Lend-Lease. The US Navy attacked Germany in April 1941 and the Germans attacked the US in September. There was no need to orchestrate.

---

Silly rebuttal.

Whether or not you believe there was a ' need ' Roosevelt 's action of cutting all US oil exports to Japan absolutely forced them to invade the Dutch East Indies in order to replace that oil.

As Japan did not produce any oil on their home islands . And without oil the entire Japanese military would have been unable to function in its war in China.

---

So we were obligated to sell Japan the means to continue its war on Manchuria?
So to prevent war, we have to facilitate it?

---

Roosevelt simply decided China was more important than American lives.

So after hundreds of thousands of US dead.........
China become communist.

So how can any rational individual believe Roosevelt made the right choice ?

---

Again, we see the implicit presumption that America has a moral obligation to stand aside and let other countries do whatever they hell they want so long as they do not cross our orders, and that such will ensure a long-lasting peace.

How can any rational individual believe that the pathway to peace and prosperity for the American people was to let Japan build a "greater east asia co-propsperity sphere" all the way up to our shores?

---

Japan never had any desire to even go to Australia, much less to our shores.
I never said they did. But they did infringe on Australian interests in the Pacific rather significantly and would/could have taken Austrialia in the even it refused to accede to Japanese hegemony in the region.

By to same token, why the the US feel entitled to make the Philippines our colony ? We even implemented concentration camps where thousands of civilians died. None of our actions in that region bear close inspection.
We didn't "make" the Philippines our colony. We got it by virtue of winning the Spanish-American War. And 50 years later all we had was a handful of island territories in the Pacific. Because we were not then nor ever have been a colonial power in any meaningful sense of the term.

You insist on a double standard, in regards to Japan.
No slam, as with with your CIA indoctrination it is perfectly understandable.
How much of Asia did Japan have to invade before they have any responsibility for launching a surprise attack against us to drag us into WWII?

---

You have a completely crackpot take on this.

---

LOL...

Whiterock: "You have a completely crackpot take on this."

Also Whiterock: "Because we were not then nor ever have been a colonial power in any meaningful sense of the term"

The U.S. was allied to the Soviet Union during WWII and they were our enemy in the Cold War within a few years after it ended. Geopolitics is messy & can change quickly.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I don't know if this is true of RB, but there are plenty of people who buy into revisionist history and blame the US for everything. Usually it is laughable in its absurdity and easily refuted.

historian said:

---

I don't know if this is true of RB, but there are plenty of people who buy into revisionist history and blame the US for everything. Usually it is laughable in its absurdity and easily refuted.

---

I certainly don't blame the US for everything. We are correct in confronting China, but do you admit that that is a monster of our own making given our flawed trade policy over the past 3 decades?

We are 100% wrong in Ukraine. Our foolishness in insisting on expanding NATO essentially wasted the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.

On the diplomatic side, we are correct in supporting Israel over Islamic terrorists though we simply cannot afford to give them any money given the state of our finances. Also, we need to consider what sort of an exit strategy there is for reducing tensions in the region.

I agree with most of this.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Israel using several female fighter pilots in the strikes against the Islamist regime which has subjugated and enslaved the women of Iran is truly poetic justice. pic.twitter.com/03W4U59Gna

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

No, this isn't poetic justice. It is merely another example of the feminist exhibitionism that is destroying western civilization. Women do not belong in combat roles.

---

Disagree.

There are some tough, clear minded, women who are valuable in any combat zone.

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Israel using several female fighter pilots in the strikes against the Islamist regime which has subjugated and enslaved the women of Iran is truly poetic justice. pic.twitter.com/03W4U59Gna

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

No, this isn't poetic justice. It is merely another example of the feminist exhibitionism that is destroying western civilization. Women do not belong in combat roles.

---

Interesting enough women have been proven to be able to keep tract of more individual targets than men.

Men basically lose the ability to keep tract of more than 3 individual targets while women can easily double that number.

But they are far less able to handle G forces in a fighter plane

[G tolerance: Some studies have found that women have a significant difference in G tolerance when matched for height. Pilot selection tests: The U.S. Air Force has found that there are mean score differences on pilot selection tests between men and women]

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Israel using several female fighter pilots in the strikes against the Islamist regime which has subjugated and enslaved the women of Iran is truly poetic justice. pic.twitter.com/03W4U59Gna

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2024

---

No, this isn't poetic justice. It is merely another example of the feminist exhibitionism that is destroying western civilization. Women do not belong in combat roles.

---

Disagree.

There are some tough, clear minded, women who are valuable in any combat zone.

---

Like in all thing....there are always outliers

In general....women will never be as effective as men in direct combat roles

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

I think the bigger difference is actually Japan, not America. Japan before WW1 was relatively peaceful, outside of the conflict with Russia. Japan wanted to maintain it's influence over Manchuria, but Russia refused to allow that... so they went to war. Japan won the war, and the begging of the Russian decline followed.
Japan was not really an ally of America... it was an ally of the UK. When America joined the war, we were allies with everyone who was an ally of the UK. So technically, we were allies with Japan.

Japan in the 1930s was invading, conquering and occupying nations all around Eastern Asia.
They invaded China, Indochina, and many other nations. They also became allies with Nazi Germany, who was occupying many of our allied nations (France, Belgum, etc) and currently bombing the UK.
So the US stopped trade with Japan because of their actions in Asia, and their support of Germany in Europe.

American polices had nothing to do with Japan becoming an ally of Nazi Germany. Likewise, American polices had nothing to do with Japan invading & conquering nations all across Asia & the Pacific.

The reasons for Japan being an ally and becoming an enemy fall completely upon Japan... not the US.

The government of Japan before WW1 and before WW2 was not the same. The militarists had effectively taken over the government in the 1930s.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

Curious, how was Ukraine the US fault or avoidable? Ukraine and the others wanted to align west and have access to the western economy and security.

---

You keep shilling for that State Department/CIA talking point

In truth half of Ukraine's voting population did not want to align with DC-Brussels and consistently voted for the pro-Moscow party (The Party of Regions)

They even won the election in 2010 by 49.55% of the vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Indeed a various points its been the largest political party in Ukraine (until Zelensky banned it)

[The Party of Regions ,Partiia rehioniv, is a political party in Ukraine formed in late 1997 that became the largest party in Ukraine between 2006 and 2014.]


Ukraine was always a divided country between its capital region and western provinces who wanted to align with the EU-USA and its eastern provinces that wanted to align with Russia

Obviously both DC and Moscow have engaged in taking advantage of those internal fault lines to try and pull the whole country into one or the other camp.

But its foolish and wrong to say that "all Ukrainians wanted to align with Russia" or to say "all Ukrainians wanted to align with the West"

---

I agree that half of Ukraine wanted to align with the West and the other half wanted to align with Russia.

But you didn't explain how America is solely at fault for the mess in Ukraine today?
You could say that the weakness in DC allowed for Russia to invade Ukraine... but to say that American policies caused the war in Ukraine is a bit of a stretch. Due to the split in the loyalties within Ukrainian population, it seems that there was always going to be some kind of conflict or separation. Most nations on the planet do not peacefully co-exist with such internal conflicts of interest & loyalty.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Japan was an Allied Power in World War I.

23 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Such a drastic change requires some self examination. It is also a lesson on how quickly the world can change.

---

Are you implying that the United States was somehow responsible for causing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor? That the US did something that made them want to attack?

---

I'm saying that if in 23 years you can go from fighting a war with someone to fighting a war against someone that the foreign policy that led to such an outcome needs to have a proctologist look at it.

This is equally true of the few decades from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the current mess in Ukraine.

Not all wars can be avoided. But it is one thing for simmering tensions between hostile nations to boil over (Armenia/Azerbaijan), and it is quite another to convert an ally or potential ally into an enemy in a short period of time.

---

I think the bigger difference is actually Japan, not America. Japan before WW1 was relatively peaceful, outside of the conflict with Russia. Japan wanted to maintain it's influence over Manchuria, but Russia refused to allow that... so they went to war. Japan won the war, and the begging of the Russian decline followed.
Japan was not really an ally of America... it was an ally of the UK. When America joined the war, we were allies with everyone who was an ally of the UK. So technically, we were allies with Japan.

Japan in the 1930s was invading, conquering and occupying nations all around Eastern Asia.
They invaded China, Indochina, and many other nations. They also became allies with Nazi Germany, who was occupying many of our allied nations (France, Belgum, etc) and currently bombing the UK.
So the US stopped trade with Japan because of their actions in Asia, and their support of Germany in Europe.

American polices had nothing to do with Japan becoming an ally of Nazi Germany. Likewise, American polices had nothing to do with Japan invading & conquering nations all across Asia & the Pacific.

The reasons for Japan being an ally and becoming an enemy fall completely upon Japan... not the US.

---

Great post

You also have to wonder if geography played a role in Japan's rise to greatness

"the cost of transport via water is roughly 10 to 30 times cheaper than overland. This simple fact makes countries with robust maritime transport options extremely capital-rich when compared to countries limited to land-only options. This factor is the primary reason why the major economic powers of the past half-millennia have been Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States."