President Trump announces military strikes on Iran: Operation Epic Fury

430,936 Views | 6598 Replies | Last: 2 min ago by boognish_bear
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Porteroso said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Ever checked the location of military facilities in downtown Tel Aviv and other populated areas? Both sides are accused of this, and they both whine about it.

The issue remains the intentional targeting of civilians.

Not only does Hamas intentionally target Israeli civilians. They intentionally use their own civilians as targets.

Second claim questionable. First claim true on a smaller scale. Both sides use terrorism, i.e. targeting civilians for political purposes. Only Israel targets them for genocidal purposes.


The documented and stated goal of Hamas is to kill the Jews and drive them in to sea. How much more "genocidal" can you get? Tens of thousands of rockets and slaughtering 1,000 plus in a single day is not a "smaller scale," it is the scale they were able to accomplish of their stated genocidal purposes. When are you going to start believing what Hamas has been saying and doing for decades? Israeli operations are not designed for "genocidal purposes." Doesn't automatically mean they are great actions or justified, that's another debate, but genocide is a legal term that requires an intent that is not present.

The reports commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council found that both parties committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. They found in addition that Israel committed genocide as legally defined by the Genocide Convention. The discussion of intent can be found in Part IV, "Dolus specialis of genocide" (paragraphs 156-220).

Genocide is defined by the dictionary though. The stated purpose of Israel has never been genocide. Infact they defended with very little retaliation against a terrorist group, later government in Gaza, who did state their purpose was genocide and backed it up with action for decades.

You make a simple mistake most Westerners make, and maybe you even know better. You take the actions of a group in the Middle East as if they happen in a vacuum, which isn't quite fair in a millenia old conflict. Even the actions of Russua Ukraine have to be examined going back centuries to unravel that particular conflict.

If you simply look at the past 2-3 years, Israel looks like a bully. If you really consider the history of Israel/Hamas, Israel looks like it showed incredible restraint far longer than any other civilized country would. Israel is making mistakes that should be criticized, but the entirety of the conflict should be blamed on Hamas.

I don't take it in a vacuum at all. The more you consider the history, the worse Israel looks. Genocide is defined by the totality of the evidence, not cherry-picked phrases about driving Jews into the sea. The phrase itself is an amalgamation or interpretation of some statements by a PLO leader almost 60 years ago, before Hamas existed. It would have been better had Hamas never existed and the two sides agreed on a solution. But then there could be no Greater Israel. The Israelis needed Hamas as a spoiler.


"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it".
Hamas Charter, 1988.

Hamas has never recognized Israel as a country, and their purpose remains Israel's obliteration. At some point, you just need to believe what they tell you instead of trying to make excuses for Oct. 7.

The reports commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council found that both parties committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. They found in addition that Israel committed genocide as legally defined by the Genocide Convention. The discussion of intent can be found in Part IV, "Dolus specialis of genocide" (paragraphs 156-220).

That is not an excuse for Oct. 7. You're simply attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the factual and legal substance of the matter.


Embedded in your arguments, and in some United Nations rhetoric, is the idea, unsupported by current events and history, that Hamas and Israel are roughly equivalent entities. They are not. Hamas is a "strap explosives on your child and use them as a human bomb" organization. The IDF, like all military organizations who fight an enemy, has instances of human rights abuse, and those instances are subject to internal investigation and punishment. One could criticize that process, but that process exists. On the other hand, committing those crimes on as great a scale as they are capable is Hamas' raison d'tre. This is not like a border dispute between the United States and Canada or Mexico. One side has, as its stated aim, the obliteration of the other. It remains true today that if the Arabs laid down their weapons (and suicide vests) there would be no more conflict, and if Israel laid down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

And there it is. When all else fails, it's the last refuge of the scoundrels, the moral equivalency argument. "Standards don't apply to us. We're the good guys."


Standards do apply, and are applied. If an Israeli citizen takes an Israeli school boy, straps a bomb on him and has him walk up to a Gaza hospital ER and blow himself up, he would be arrested and tried. If a Hamas operative does that, he will be celebrated.

The Israeli government and military are not perfect, but they are not uniquely evil or even appreciably more evil than many other governments or militaries, including our own. Accusing them of genocide for imperfectly defending themselves while minimizing Hamas' clearly stated genocidal intentions and actions defies logic.



It defies logic because they're not committing genocide, or because they're defending themselves from Hamas? If it's the latter, you are indeed saying the rules don't apply to them. If you're arguing the former, you have yet to deal with the wealth of evidence presented in the UN report and elsewhere.


It defies logic because it is illogical to hold the IDF to a standard that we do not seem to require of any other nation. In war, people die, including innocent people. The IDF has a track record in Gaza of attempting to limit civilian deaths rather than maximize them. A genocidal policy does not attempt to provide evacuation warnings, safe zones, or corridors for people to have safe passage out of a combat zone. A genocidal policy does not abort certain military strikes on combatants when civilians are also detected, and it certainly does not drop a non explosive ordinance on the roof to warn people to get out before dropping actual explosives.

Again, from the UNHRC:

Quote:

The Commission investigated large-scale incidents between October and December 2023 in which the Israeli security forces attacked civilian neighbourhoods resulting a high number of civilian deaths. For example, on 20 October 2023, the Al-Aydi family home in Al-Nuseirat refugee camp was struck by an airstrike in an area designated by the Israeli military on 8 October 2023 as a safe zone for residents of the northern Gaza Strip. According to Amnesty International, the Israeli strike killed 28 civilians, including 12 children. One survivor recounted the devastating event to Amnesty International: "[w]e were sitting at home, it was full of people, of children, of relatives. Suddenly, without any warning, everything collapsed on our head. All my brothers died, my nephews, my nieces… My mother died, my sisters died".

Importantly, in relation to the targeting of Palestinians along evacuation routes and in safe zones, the Commission found that Palestinians, including women and children, were directly targeted and killed, even in the absence of hostilities in the vicinity and when they were by themselves. One such incident occurred on 13 October 2023 on Salah Al-Din Street in Gaza City, where an evacuation convoy of vehicles heading south was struck by several projectiles near the Esleem petrol station. The attack targeted not only passing civilian vehicles but also clearly marked first responders and medical teams arriving at the scene. An eyewitness reported that approximately 200 individuals, mostly women and children, were on the same truck with him, near the explosion site. He described how subsequent explosions caused multiple civilian casualties. As emergency teams arrived and began assisting the wounded, another attack occurred.

In all cases analysed by the Commission in relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians along the evacuation routes and within the safe areas but nevertheless they shot at and killed civilians, some of whom (including children) were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.

Palestinians in Gaza were attacked in their homes, at hospitals, in shelters (including schools and religious sites), during the evacuations and in designated safe zones. At times, civilians, journalists, healthcare professionals, humanitarian workers and other protected persons were directly targeted and killed. According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, as of 15 April 2025, 1,400 healthcare workers were killed. On 31 March 2025, UNRWA Commissioner-General stated that a total of 408 aid workers were killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023.62 From 7 October 2023 to 23 July 2025, over 330 UNRWA team members have been confirmed killed. Reportedly, as of 3 March 2025, at least 170 journalists and media worker had been killed due to Israeli military operations.

In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters. Specifically in relation to children, the Commission found, that it was foreseeable on many occasions that civilians, including children, would be present in the area targeted by the Israeli security forces (for example, in residential buildings, UNRWA schools, medical facilities and within designated safe zones) and that the Israeli security forces intended to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children.

The Commission finds that the killing of Palestinians since 7 October 2023 occurred mainly through three different means: (i) killing through attacks against protected objects (such as civilian homes and healthcare facilities) where civilians were present; (ii) targeting civilians and other protected persons, for example, during the evacuations, within safe zones or at shelters; and (iii) deaths due to the deliberate infliction of conditions of life (such as the blockade of medicine and medical equipment and humanitarian aid from entering into Gaza).

As such, the Commission concludes that the actus reus and mens rea of 'killing members of the group' under article II(a) of the Genocide Convention are established.



I wonder how any if this was verified. I bet it was not. No matter how high up an organization is, you cannot just make allegations of people dying during war, then claim it is genocide.

It's a ridiculous standard that has never been applied to anyone else. Everyone in war shoots at what they think is the enemy. Everyone is wrong sometimes.

The only standards the international community can reasonably hold any nation to, are asking for justification for the war, check, and trying to contain the fighting to the parties involved.

What you cited was non combatants making reports. By the way, what is this truck that holds 200 people? I want to see a picture. Errors aside, it doesn't matter what this guy says. He has no idea whether the people surrounding him were civilians or not. Just that he was.

Bizarre that any organization would use an account like this to determine fault. What effort was made to determine if these were civilians or not? What a joke of a source.

There are nearly 500 footnotes, so feel free to dig as deep as you want. The particular incident you're asking about was covered by multiple Arab and British news sources, including the BBC. 12 victims were identified, including women, children, and a medical doctor who taught at the university.

Strike on civilian convoy fleeing Gaza: What we know from verified video



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

Sam Lowry said:

Porteroso said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Ever checked the location of military facilities in downtown Tel Aviv and other populated areas? Both sides are accused of this, and they both whine about it.

The issue remains the intentional targeting of civilians.

Not only does Hamas intentionally target Israeli civilians. They intentionally use their own civilians as targets.

Second claim questionable. First claim true on a smaller scale. Both sides use terrorism, i.e. targeting civilians for political purposes. Only Israel targets them for genocidal purposes.


The documented and stated goal of Hamas is to kill the Jews and drive them in to sea. How much more "genocidal" can you get? Tens of thousands of rockets and slaughtering 1,000 plus in a single day is not a "smaller scale," it is the scale they were able to accomplish of their stated genocidal purposes. When are you going to start believing what Hamas has been saying and doing for decades? Israeli operations are not designed for "genocidal purposes." Doesn't automatically mean they are great actions or justified, that's another debate, but genocide is a legal term that requires an intent that is not present.

The reports commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council found that both parties committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. They found in addition that Israel committed genocide as legally defined by the Genocide Convention. The discussion of intent can be found in Part IV, "Dolus specialis of genocide" (paragraphs 156-220).

Genocide is defined by the dictionary though. The stated purpose of Israel has never been genocide. Infact they defended with very little retaliation against a terrorist group, later government in Gaza, who did state their purpose was genocide and backed it up with action for decades.

You make a simple mistake most Westerners make, and maybe you even know better. You take the actions of a group in the Middle East as if they happen in a vacuum, which isn't quite fair in a millenia old conflict. Even the actions of Russua Ukraine have to be examined going back centuries to unravel that particular conflict.

If you simply look at the past 2-3 years, Israel looks like a bully. If you really consider the history of Israel/Hamas, Israel looks like it showed incredible restraint far longer than any other civilized country would. Israel is making mistakes that should be criticized, but the entirety of the conflict should be blamed on Hamas.

I don't take it in a vacuum at all. The more you consider the history, the worse Israel looks. Genocide is defined by the totality of the evidence, not cherry-picked phrases about driving Jews into the sea. The phrase itself is an amalgamation or interpretation of some statements by a PLO leader almost 60 years ago, before Hamas existed. It would have been better had Hamas never existed and the two sides agreed on a solution. But then there could be no Greater Israel. The Israelis needed Hamas as a spoiler.

So you agree that if Hamas didnt exist, Israel would not have killed these civilians in Gaza?

Not unless they found another excuse.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Any attack on Israel & the IDF that resembles Hamas or Iranian propaganda is obviously worthless. Anyone who makes such idiotic comments, obvious lies, should be embarrassed and ashamed. As I keep saying, bigotry is irrational. The antisemites repeatedly prove me correct.

You seem like a nice guy with sincere, if simplistic, beliefs. Hopefully one day you'll learn to have a discussion without crying "racist" or "fascist" every other post.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ironic post of the day.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gotta appreciate the mental gymnastics of the left

There is no limit
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I make observations about what I see and I use the term "fascist" accurately. Too many people misunderstand what it actually means, believing the lies they were taught by Leftists. The modern misuse of the term originated with Stalin's propaganda. We must understand the real meaning based upon historical reality, not Leftist propaganda.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That tariff plan is working well. Remember, they have no choice they have to do what Trump says? Well, as several on here stated they will pay lip service until they have a choice. Nations are not figuring ways to trade with us, they are spending time and capital on getting away from us.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Porteroso said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Porteroso said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Ever checked the location of military facilities in downtown Tel Aviv and other populated areas? Both sides are accused of this, and they both whine about it.

The issue remains the intentional targeting of civilians.

Not only does Hamas intentionally target Israeli civilians. They intentionally use their own civilians as targets.

Second claim questionable. First claim true on a smaller scale. Both sides use terrorism, i.e. targeting civilians for political purposes. Only Israel targets them for genocidal purposes.


The documented and stated goal of Hamas is to kill the Jews and drive them in to sea. How much more "genocidal" can you get? Tens of thousands of rockets and slaughtering 1,000 plus in a single day is not a "smaller scale," it is the scale they were able to accomplish of their stated genocidal purposes. When are you going to start believing what Hamas has been saying and doing for decades? Israeli operations are not designed for "genocidal purposes." Doesn't automatically mean they are great actions or justified, that's another debate, but genocide is a legal term that requires an intent that is not present.

The reports commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council found that both parties committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. They found in addition that Israel committed genocide as legally defined by the Genocide Convention. The discussion of intent can be found in Part IV, "Dolus specialis of genocide" (paragraphs 156-220).

Genocide is defined by the dictionary though. The stated purpose of Israel has never been genocide. Infact they defended with very little retaliation against a terrorist group, later government in Gaza, who did state their purpose was genocide and backed it up with action for decades.

You make a simple mistake most Westerners make, and maybe you even know better. You take the actions of a group in the Middle East as if they happen in a vacuum, which isn't quite fair in a millenia old conflict. Even the actions of Russua Ukraine have to be examined going back centuries to unravel that particular conflict.

If you simply look at the past 2-3 years, Israel looks like a bully. If you really consider the history of Israel/Hamas, Israel looks like it showed incredible restraint far longer than any other civilized country would. Israel is making mistakes that should be criticized, but the entirety of the conflict should be blamed on Hamas.

I don't take it in a vacuum at all. The more you consider the history, the worse Israel looks. Genocide is defined by the totality of the evidence, not cherry-picked phrases about driving Jews into the sea. The phrase itself is an amalgamation or interpretation of some statements by a PLO leader almost 60 years ago, before Hamas existed. It would have been better had Hamas never existed and the two sides agreed on a solution. But then there could be no Greater Israel. The Israelis needed Hamas as a spoiler.


"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it".
Hamas Charter, 1988.

Hamas has never recognized Israel as a country, and their purpose remains Israel's obliteration. At some point, you just need to believe what they tell you instead of trying to make excuses for Oct. 7.

The reports commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council found that both parties committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. They found in addition that Israel committed genocide as legally defined by the Genocide Convention. The discussion of intent can be found in Part IV, "Dolus specialis of genocide" (paragraphs 156-220).

That is not an excuse for Oct. 7. You're simply attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the factual and legal substance of the matter.


Embedded in your arguments, and in some United Nations rhetoric, is the idea, unsupported by current events and history, that Hamas and Israel are roughly equivalent entities. They are not. Hamas is a "strap explosives on your child and use them as a human bomb" organization. The IDF, like all military organizations who fight an enemy, has instances of human rights abuse, and those instances are subject to internal investigation and punishment. One could criticize that process, but that process exists. On the other hand, committing those crimes on as great a scale as they are capable is Hamas' raison d'tre. This is not like a border dispute between the United States and Canada or Mexico. One side has, as its stated aim, the obliteration of the other. It remains true today that if the Arabs laid down their weapons (and suicide vests) there would be no more conflict, and if Israel laid down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

And there it is. When all else fails, it's the last refuge of the scoundrels, the moral equivalency argument. "Standards don't apply to us. We're the good guys."


Standards do apply, and are applied. If an Israeli citizen takes an Israeli school boy, straps a bomb on him and has him walk up to a Gaza hospital ER and blow himself up, he would be arrested and tried. If a Hamas operative does that, he will be celebrated.

The Israeli government and military are not perfect, but they are not uniquely evil or even appreciably more evil than many other governments or militaries, including our own. Accusing them of genocide for imperfectly defending themselves while minimizing Hamas' clearly stated genocidal intentions and actions defies logic.



It defies logic because they're not committing genocide, or because they're defending themselves from Hamas? If it's the latter, you are indeed saying the rules don't apply to them. If you're arguing the former, you have yet to deal with the wealth of evidence presented in the UN report and elsewhere.


It defies logic because it is illogical to hold the IDF to a standard that we do not seem to require of any other nation. In war, people die, including innocent people. The IDF has a track record in Gaza of attempting to limit civilian deaths rather than maximize them. A genocidal policy does not attempt to provide evacuation warnings, safe zones, or corridors for people to have safe passage out of a combat zone. A genocidal policy does not abort certain military strikes on combatants when civilians are also detected, and it certainly does not drop a non explosive ordinance on the roof to warn people to get out before dropping actual explosives.

Again, from the UNHRC:

Quote:

The Commission investigated large-scale incidents between October and December 2023 in which the Israeli security forces attacked civilian neighbourhoods resulting a high number of civilian deaths. For example, on 20 October 2023, the Al-Aydi family home in Al-Nuseirat refugee camp was struck by an airstrike in an area designated by the Israeli military on 8 October 2023 as a safe zone for residents of the northern Gaza Strip. According to Amnesty International, the Israeli strike killed 28 civilians, including 12 children. One survivor recounted the devastating event to Amnesty International: "[w]e were sitting at home, it was full of people, of children, of relatives. Suddenly, without any warning, everything collapsed on our head. All my brothers died, my nephews, my nieces… My mother died, my sisters died".

Importantly, in relation to the targeting of Palestinians along evacuation routes and in safe zones, the Commission found that Palestinians, including women and children, were directly targeted and killed, even in the absence of hostilities in the vicinity and when they were by themselves. One such incident occurred on 13 October 2023 on Salah Al-Din Street in Gaza City, where an evacuation convoy of vehicles heading south was struck by several projectiles near the Esleem petrol station. The attack targeted not only passing civilian vehicles but also clearly marked first responders and medical teams arriving at the scene. An eyewitness reported that approximately 200 individuals, mostly women and children, were on the same truck with him, near the explosion site. He described how subsequent explosions caused multiple civilian casualties. As emergency teams arrived and began assisting the wounded, another attack occurred.

In all cases analysed by the Commission in relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians along the evacuation routes and within the safe areas but nevertheless they shot at and killed civilians, some of whom (including children) were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.

Palestinians in Gaza were attacked in their homes, at hospitals, in shelters (including schools and religious sites), during the evacuations and in designated safe zones. At times, civilians, journalists, healthcare professionals, humanitarian workers and other protected persons were directly targeted and killed. According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, as of 15 April 2025, 1,400 healthcare workers were killed. On 31 March 2025, UNRWA Commissioner-General stated that a total of 408 aid workers were killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023.62 From 7 October 2023 to 23 July 2025, over 330 UNRWA team members have been confirmed killed. Reportedly, as of 3 March 2025, at least 170 journalists and media worker had been killed due to Israeli military operations.

In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters. Specifically in relation to children, the Commission found, that it was foreseeable on many occasions that civilians, including children, would be present in the area targeted by the Israeli security forces (for example, in residential buildings, UNRWA schools, medical facilities and within designated safe zones) and that the Israeli security forces intended to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children.

The Commission finds that the killing of Palestinians since 7 October 2023 occurred mainly through three different means: (i) killing through attacks against protected objects (such as civilian homes and healthcare facilities) where civilians were present; (ii) targeting civilians and other protected persons, for example, during the evacuations, within safe zones or at shelters; and (iii) deaths due to the deliberate infliction of conditions of life (such as the blockade of medicine and medical equipment and humanitarian aid from entering into Gaza).

As such, the Commission concludes that the actus reus and mens rea of 'killing members of the group' under article II(a) of the Genocide Convention are established.



I wonder how any if this was verified. I bet it was not. No matter how high up an organization is, you cannot just make allegations of people dying during war, then claim it is genocide.

It's a ridiculous standard that has never been applied to anyone else. Everyone in war shoots at what they think is the enemy. Everyone is wrong sometimes.

The only standards the international community can reasonably hold any nation to, are asking for justification for the war, check, and trying to contain the fighting to the parties involved.

What you cited was non combatants making reports. By the way, what is this truck that holds 200 people? I want to see a picture. Errors aside, it doesn't matter what this guy says. He has no idea whether the people surrounding him were civilians or not. Just that he was.

Bizarre that any organization would use an account like this to determine fault. What effort was made to determine if these were civilians or not? What a joke of a source.

There are nearly 500 footnotes, so feel free to dig as deep as you want. The particular incident you're asking about was covered by multiple Arab and British news sources, including the BBC. 12 victims were identified, including women, children, and a medical doctor who taught at the university.

Strike on civilian convoy fleeing Gaza: What we know from verified video





I see. Humans packed on a open trailer. It's horrific, but do you think there might have been a Hamas operative amongst the 200?

I do think Israel is using up any goodwill it might have had, and going into the negative. They are really earning some hatred. And yeah, it's ok to hate groups that mass kill civilians. Part of the Hamas plan. Their cowardice relies upon the price to root them out being way too high.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

That tariff plan is working well. Remember, they have no choice they have to do what Trump says? Well, as several on here stated they will pay lip service until they have a choice. Nations are not figuring ways to trade with us, they are spending time and capital on getting away from us.

Only in your mind. They cannot afford to get away from us. That's why they're investing tens of trillions of dollars HERE, to produce goods & services HERE.

Our market is the largest and best part of the world economy, roughly a quarter of the total. Our EU/G20 trade partners represent roughly a quarter (and they can't exactly "trade" with themselves). The third piece, again roughly a quarter, is China (from which the developed world has for several years broadly decoupling rather than engaging, which is no big deal given that China is not much of a consumer market). The final quarter, of course, is the "third world" which by definition is hardly a robust a consumer market.

So the true situation is that the G20 cannot hope to replace losses in the US market with gains in China and the 3rd world. So no matter how much Trump may irritate them, the plain simple math is that they'll be way better off investing here, to move more of their national production inside our tariff barriers. That's why we see so much foreign investment pouring in.

You have to let go of what you want to be and start dealing with what is.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If there is a what is perceived as a fair exchange. Right or wrong, right now it is not. It is viewed as heavy handed, bullying and Authoritarian. Canada is looking for alternatives for its oil, people will only be forced until they can get away. Deal may not be better or even as good, but getting out of coercive relationships holds value.


By the way, this is NOT all Trump, he brought it to a head with his tariff policy and expansionist talk. Biden killed the alternative, let's not forget that...
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.


You continue to mischaracterize the paleocon position as "isolationist." It is not. Foreign affairs do have value, just not in the way we have conducted them since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.


What if Isreal handled their affairs without our money and weapons?

How is that any different than our relationship with our parents? I can tell you my pops would never have allowed me to not go to school, **** hoes and live in his house.

We allow Israel to use our resources and when they don't like how much we allocate to them or apply accountability to the resources usage? They come to our country, buy our congress and criticize our leaders who don't comply.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

If there is a what is perceived as a fair exchange. Right or wrong, right now it is not. It is viewed as heavy handed, bullying and Authoritarian. Canada is looking for alternatives for its oil, people will only be forced until they can get away. Deal may not be better or even as good, but getting out of coercive relationships holds value.


By the way, this is NOT all Trump, he brought it to a head with his tariff policy and expansionist talk. Biden killed the alternative, let's not forget that...

If it wasn't fair, they wouldn't take the deal, right? I mean, we're not forcing them to do stuff against their will. We renegotiated our trade deals. Came to new agreements. They don't have to trade or invest with us. They choose to. So your whole premise here is silly.

The end of globalism is good business. It's what had to happen. We simply cannot continue to run trade deficits.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As you said originally, they have to take the deal. The tariff's caught them by surprise, probably in scope and scale.

I think you are seeing one of the first reactions to that situation. They have a deal they can live with, but will they next Tuesday? Trump is unpredictable. He may get pissed at Ottawa and change the terms, not honor them. What is going to stop him? As you said, they have no option.

You are a CEO, would you leave yourself at the whim of Trump? Where you HAVE to accept? You have to come on bended knee to cut a deal? You said it with your data centers, that if it doesn't work out we will go to another community that does. Why would you think that Ottawa, Seoul, Mexico City, Bejing, etc are different? They will play along until they can find a deal better and then switch even IF a little less profitable if more stable.


I agree on the trade deficit issue. But, I believe you are either mixing two separate issues. It is not what we did that is causing the issue, it is the how we did it. You know business loves stability. Unless you are going for a one deal kill, which is what Donald knows, you have to create a stable, respectable relationship. Both Trump and Bessent have not done that, it has been predatory. The US economy is not mergers and acquisitions...
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.

I feel sorry for that straw man. He's taken a real beating over the years.

Of course there's such a thing as good foreign policy. You neocons have just been in charge so long that no one knows what it looks like any more.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Cut those MFers off
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.

I feel sorry for that straw man. He's taken a real beating over the years.

Of course there's such a thing as good foreign policy. You neocons have just been in charge so long that no one knows what it looks like any more.

no exactly - Trump 47 is NeoCon 2......

- el UF

found this:

longish read - but a nice recap of things Pax Americana:

https://logosjournal.com/article/benevolent-global-hegemony-william-kristol-and-the-politics-of-american-empire/
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
william said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Nah, the discussion was originally about Iran.

and the Jews only got dragged because the isolationists lost the argument at the outset.

Kinda feel sorry for you guys. Insisting that foreign affairs have no value to us makes it very, very difficult to craft an argument that any particular plank of foreign policy is either good or bad.

I feel sorry for that straw man. He's taken a real beating over the years.

Of course there's such a thing as good foreign policy. You neocons have just been in charge so long that no one knows what it looks like any more.

no exactly - Trump 47 is NeoCon 2......

- el UF

found this:

longish read - but a nice recap of things Pax Americana:

https://logosjournal.com/article/benevolent-global-hegemony-william-kristol-and-the-politics-of-american-empire/


Bingo... Trump's policy is NeoCon through and through. Trump 2 is showing he is no different than any of the others.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



For Israel that is true as long as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iran proxies continue to launch missiles at them.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
303Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




*insert Dr. Evil "riiiigggghhhhhtttt" meme here*
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't he tell us a few days ago Iran was begging for a deal?

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
303Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Black Sabbath had a song about this.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




IRGC does not want any peace deal. Whoever is representing Iran in the talks apparently does not represent the IRGC.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

That tariff plan is working well. Remember, they have no choice they have to do what Trump says? Well, as several on here stated they will pay lip service until they have a choice. Nations are not figuring ways to trade with us, they are spending time and capital on getting away from us.

Only in your mind. They cannot afford to get away from us. That's why they're investing tens of trillions of dollars HERE, to produce goods & services HERE.

Our market is the largest and best part of the world economy, roughly a quarter of the total. Our EU/G20 trade partners represent roughly a quarter (and they can't exactly "trade" with themselves). The third piece, again roughly a quarter, is China (from which the developed world has for several years broadly decoupling rather than engaging, which is no big deal given that China is not much of a consumer market). The final quarter, of course, is the "third world" which by definition is hardly a robust a consumer market.

So the true situation is that the G20 cannot hope to replace losses in the US market with gains in China and the 3rd world. So no matter how much Trump may irritate them, the plain simple math is that they'll be way better off investing here, to move more of their national production inside our tariff barriers. That's why we see so much foreign investment pouring in.

You have to let go of what you want to be and start dealing with what is.
We became the world's largest economy because we created the world's largest consumer market. Americans buy more goods and services than anyone else on Earth. That purchasing power is what has made the U.S. indispensable to the rest of the world. Tariffs are a negative impact on that strength lowering our purchase power through higher costs.

Companies may shift some production inside tariff barriers to avoid those costs, but that is often an efficiency loss rather than an economic gain. Building a factory to avoid a tariff isn't the same thing as building one because it's the most productive place in the world.

We'll never be small enough to be ignored. We'll just dwindle away our leverage incrementally.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

That tariff plan is working well. Remember, they have no choice they have to do what Trump says? Well, as several on here stated they will pay lip service until they have a choice. Nations are not figuring ways to trade with us, they are spending time and capital on getting away from us.

Only in your mind. They cannot afford to get away from us. That's why they're investing tens of trillions of dollars HERE, to produce goods & services HERE.

Our market is the largest and best part of the world economy, roughly a quarter of the total. Our EU/G20 trade partners represent roughly a quarter (and they can't exactly "trade" with themselves). The third piece, again roughly a quarter, is China (from which the developed world has for several years broadly decoupling rather than engaging, which is no big deal given that China is not much of a consumer market). The final quarter, of course, is the "third world" which by definition is hardly a robust a consumer market.

So the true situation is that the G20 cannot hope to replace losses in the US market with gains in China and the 3rd world. So no matter how much Trump may irritate them, the plain simple math is that they'll be way better off investing here, to move more of their national production inside our tariff barriers. That's why we see so much foreign investment pouring in.

You have to let go of what you want to be and start dealing with what is.

We became the world's largest economy because we created the world's largest consumer market. Americans buy more goods and services than anyone else on Earth. That purchasing power is what has made the U.S. indispensable to the rest of the world. Tariffs are a negative impact on that strength lowering our purchase power through higher costs.

Companies may shift some production inside tariff barriers to avoid those costs, but that is often an efficiency loss rather than an economic gain. Building a factory to avoid a tariff isn't the same thing as building one because it's the most productive place in the world.

We'll never be small enough to be ignored. We'll just dwindle away our leverage incrementally.



I would happily sacrifice economic prosperity to reverse the cultural decay.

First Page Last Page
Page 174 of 189
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.