demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 17:55:34 GMT
This entire region is an albatross around our neck.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 18:16:48 GMT
If Israel wants to start a war in Lebanon (because the last 2 went so well), they can do it without expecting us to cover their ass and taking any hits over it.
Fortunately it seems we have more grounded adults, rather than extreme reactionaries, in charge right now, that will not just abandon our ally like this. Also, Israel is responding to the daily acts of war Hezbollah are engaged in with the rocket launches into Israel.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 18:29:20 GMT
Fortunately it seems we have more grounded adults, rather than extreme reactionaries, in charge right now, that will not just abandon our ally like this. We have troops in the region and have other aims we're pursuing; so if they're planning on a ground invasion of Lebanon, we should tell them they're on their own which would hopefully nip that idea in the bud, because that would not be in our interests.
Would be less concerned about any this if we weren't so tied to the region.
Which isn't new. Israel and Hezbollah have been having that tit for tat for a long time now.
What is new are the Houthis' capabilities (yay blowback), the fact that they're still engaged in operations in Gaza, and are conducting raids in the West Bank. That doesn't bode well if they're planning to invade Lebanon (again, because it hasn't worked out well the past 2 times either).
Avoiding a broader conflict should be our priority.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 18:41:53 GMT
Fortunately it seems we have more grounded adults, rather than extreme reactionaries, in charge right now, that will not just abandon our ally like this. We have troops in the region and have other aims we're pursuing; so if they're planning on a ground invasion of Lebanon, we should tell them they're on their own which would hopefully nip that idea in the bud, because that would not be in our interests.
Would be less concerned about any this if we weren't so tied to the region.
Which isn't new. Israel and Hezbollah have been having that tit for tat for a long time now.
What is new are the Houthis' capabilities (yay blowback), the fact that they're still engaged in operations in Gaza, and are conducting raids in the West Bank. That doesn't bode well if they're planning to invade Lebanon (again, because it hasn't worked out well the past 2 times either).
Avoiding a broader conflict should be our priority.
Ah yes... you want hostile forces to dictate to us what we can and can't do by cowering to their threats of force. I see. Your position is tantamount to telling the rape victim she deserved it because she should have known better than to wear that short skirt. (yay blowback!) You can avoid a broader conflict by the threat of force, just as you are here wanting to cower to others threats of force. If it works on you, it should work on them too.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 18:52:21 GMT
Ah yes... you want hostile forces to dictate to us what we can and can't do by cowering to their threats of force. I see. Your position is tantamount to telling the rape victim she deserved it because she should have known better than to wear that short skirt. (yay blowback!) You can avoid a broader conflict by the threat of force, just as you are here wanting to cower to others threats of force. If it works on you, it should work on them too. A broader regional conflict would interfere with our stated counterterrorism mission in Syria (ISIS), Kurdistan (ISIS), Yemen (AQAP), and probably even Somalia (AQ/Al-Shabaab).
If our ally is going to undermine that mission by potentially blowing up the region, then we should tell them we're not down for that.
Israel can keep this conflict limited. They've already reportedly taken out a lot of Hezbollah's infrastructure and leadership. And it's been shown in the past that those types of actions likely won't set off a broader conflict. A ground invasion would be another matter.
But sure let's go with your tortured analogy (in which you demonstrated you didn't understand the blowback reference).
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 18:56:55 GMT
Ah yes... you want hostile forces to dictate to us what we can and can't do by cowering to their threats of force. I see. Your position is tantamount to telling the rape victim she deserved it because she should have known better than to wear that short skirt. (yay blowback!) You can avoid a broader conflict by the threat of force, just as you are here wanting to cower to others threats of force. If it works on you, it should work on them too. A broader regional conflict would interfere with our stated counterterrorism mission in Syria (ISIS), Kurdistan (ISIS), Yemen (AQAP), and probably even Somalia (AQ/Al-Shabaab).
If our ally is going to undermine that mission by potentially blowing up the region, then we should tell them we're not down for that.
Israel can keep this conflict limited. They've already reportedly taken out a lot of Hezbollah's infrastructure and leadership. And it's been shown in the past that those types of actions likely won't set off a broader conflict. A ground invasion would be another matter.
But sure let's go with your tortured analogy (in which you demonstrated you didn't understand the blowback reference).
Ah yes... it is our ally who is blowing up the region when they respond to their being blown up by rockets on a near daily basis. What you are apparently down for is Israeli people just taking it because you are scared more bad people in the region get uber mad at them and us for fighting back. Maybe the analogy is that you think it is good to watch the woman get raped because you don't want to upset the other frat boys in the room cheering it on.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 19:01:35 GMT
Ah yes... it is our ally who is blowing up the region when they respond to their being blown up by rockets on a near daily basis. What you are apparently down for is Israeli people just taking it because you are scared more bad people in the region get uber mad at them and us for fighting back. Maybe the analogy is that you think it is good to watch the woman get raped because you don't want to upset the other frat boys in the room cheering it on. If you want to argue with a strawman, you don't need me, just continue making shit up on your own.
How about addressing the actual points:
a) A broader regional conflict would undermine our stated counterterrorism mission b) Israel is already achieving its aims without a ground invasion c) A ground invasion of Lebanon would probably provoke a wider war
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 19:10:09 GMT
Ah yes... it is our ally who is blowing up the region when they respond to their being blown up by rockets on a near daily basis. What you are apparently down for is Israeli people just taking it because you are scared more bad people in the region get uber mad at them and us for fighting back. Maybe the analogy is that you think it is good to watch the woman get raped because you don't want to upset the other frat boys in the room cheering it on. If you want to argue with a strawman, you don't need me, just continue making shit up on your own.
How about addressing the actual points:
a) A broader regional conflict would undermine our stated counterterrorism mission b) Israel is already achieving its aims without a ground invasion c) A ground invasion of Lebanon would probably provoke a wider war
I have addressed what you have written here each step of the way. a) A broader regional conflict would undermine our stated counterterrorism mission No, adversaries in the region may choose to engage in more violence in retaliation for Israel defending themselves from terrorists... and you seem to think that the solution to "counterterrorism" is to ignore the terrorism. b) Israel is already achieving its aims without a ground invasion Clearly not. Hezbollah has been engaged in near daily missile attacks since the war with Gaza began and has not let up. You did not specify "ground invasion" at first either. Israel at this time has been demanding Hezbollah stop. Are you saying Israel has achieved the submission of Hezbollah now and Hezbollah has agreed to cease hostilities against them? That has been achieved? c) A ground invasion of Lebanon would probably provoke a wider war Then you fight that war... instead of cowering to them.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 19:37:25 GMT
I have addressed what you have written here each step of the way. You've been making up strawmen, like the bolded statement below. What? My whole point about the counterterrorism issue is about not taking our eye off that ball. Our counterterrorism mission in the ME is ISIS and AQAP; that's our stated reason for being in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and remaining in Iraq specifically in Kurdistan. If we get engaged in a regional war that is the outcome of a ground invasion of Lebanon, is our focus going to be on that mission? Could that be taken advantage of by ISIS?
And Israel isn't avoiding anything, nor is anyone saying they cannot defend themselves. The issue is how certain actions by Israel could negatively impact us and our stated interests in the region. In everyone of my replies to you (#522, 524, and 526), I have specifically said ground invasion. Has been achieved yet? No. But are you going to deny that they've decapitated much of Hezbollah's leadership and taken out much of their infrastructure? Going by the reports so far, they have. I think they can achieve their aim without an invasion. And their current actions are consistent with prior responses to Hezbollah which have not expanded the conflict. Who is cowering to Hezbollah? The point is to avoid a war on multiple fronts that would include U.S. soldiers becoming targets. The Houthis have already been successfully testing Israel's defenses (with drones and missiles - that they probably wouldn't have if not for the Saudis and our intervention in the Yemeni civil war). There's still a war going on in Gaza. What Iran would do remains an open question, but they have the potential to wreak a lot of havoc without directly engaging Israel.
Not to mention the history of Israeli invasions of Lebanon (and our tangential involvement)... not great.
We don't even have to tell them publicly not to invade. Just make it clear privately that's not an option for us.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 19:53:46 GMT
You've been making up strawmen, like the bolded statement below. Not making up anything. You are sitting here talking about terrorism while decrying Israel fighting against terrorists. Or... is it that you think Hezbollah are not terrorists now? No, it would be the outcome of others. It is not us starting a regional war. It would be the region starting a war. What you want is to cowardly fail to act to support our ally in their war against terrorists out of fear of this possibility. No, the issue would be the actions of others in the region. If they want to go to war or engage in more hostilities, we respond to that, we don't cower in fear because of that possibility and abandon our ally. This was the comment I initially responded to: "If Israel wants to start a war in Lebanon (because the last 2 went so well), they can do it without expecting us to cover their ass and taking any hits over it." Exactly. So, no, Israel is not achieving their aims yet. That is what you demand. By expecting Israel to keep taking near-daily missile attacks from Hezbollah and having to live with the repercussions that it causes on their people, from the displacement to the random deaths and life under sirens? Oh crap... there you go again, victim blaming and justifying terrorism. The Houthis are terrorists. That seems to have been the Biden plan for the last year now. And it seems to be your plan that Israel should just keep taking the near-daily missile attacks. I think Israel has had enough of your plan. And now your plan is to abandon them if they keep fighting back.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 20:09:41 GMT
Not making up anything. You are sitting here talking about terrorism while decrying Israel fighting against terrorists. Or... is it that you think Hezbollah are not terrorists now? Where do you pull this crap from? It's certainly not what I wrote. Again, who said anything about us starting it? A regional war would be the reaction to the escalation that a ground invasion would represent. But instead of just addressing that, you want to make some personal attack. And those actions have a negative impact on our stated interests. Should we not consider that and try to avoid those negative impacts if possible?
And did you not read the quote that was in response to which specifically said "if it does invade southern Lebanon"? Where has that been demanded? Israel is responding Hezbollah's attacks, and quite well I would suggest: Israeli Strike Decimates Hezbollah Military LeadershipAnd they wouldn't have those drones and missiles if we - in support of the Saudis - hadn't intervened militarily. Supplying them with those arms was Iran's response to our intervention there. Because of that, Iran and the Houthis have a much closer relationship than they had prior to 2015. Other states respond to our actions. What's happening now didn't occur in a vacuum. But instead of dealing with that fact, you want to engage in more strawmen. Can you make an actual argument for your position or a counterargument that doesn't involve making stuff up out of whole cloth?
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 20:30:12 GMT
Where do you pull this crap from? It's certainly not what I wrote. Oh, so you are OK with Israel doing what it takes to defeat Hezbollah now? You were using the term "we" here: "If we get engaged in a regional war" I am just continuing on in the pluralistic language. The point I made is that any reaction is the fault of those reacting, not Israel for fighting Hezbollah. But instead of addressing that, you want to feign some personal attack because I am tearing apart your bad arguments to abandon our ally because you are worried that might make bad people upset. How do they have a negative impact? And did you read when I said that was not what you initially said but then went on to act like it was? You want to cower to Hezbollah if it comes to a ground invasion. By you demanding Israel not launch a ground invasion or your original more vague assertion about war in general. So why are you on here worried about a ground invasion? Here you go again... no, they would not have the drones or missiles if Iran was not a state sponsor of terrorism through proxies like these. No, because Iran has a vested interest in promoting their own state-sponsored terrorism goals around the Middle East. Yet again, you are here blaming us for everything and avoiding placing the blame with those doing these things. More victim blaming. It is not a strawman to point out the bad arguments you are making. [/quote] Can you actually respond to what I said instead of saying I am making stuff up? Again, I think the Israelis have had enough of the likes of you and are actually dealing with the threat now. And your response here is that we should abandon them.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 20:56:54 GMT
Oh, so you are OK with Israel doing what it takes to defeat Hezbollah now? Up to a point, and that point being where their actions don't negatively impact our interests. That's not an unreasonable position.
So, ask the question: how can we keep this a limited conflict while achieving the aims against Hezbollah? Yeah, because we - the US - have troops in the region who would be subject to attacks which would have to respond to (both in immediate self-defense and reprisals). They've already ready been targeted as a result of Israel's war in Gaza; now multiply that if there's a ground invasion of Lebanon.
It also appears that we would be expected to defend Israel, similar to what we were doing when we were shooting down Houthi missiles targeting Israel. So, yeah, we would get engaged.
What you're doing in putting words in my mouth, because I never said we were starting anything. You're making personal attacks because you have no argument. I've ready addressed this, see posts #524 and 528. Instead of responding to what I said, you made stuff up and responded to that instead.
The context of my post is an invasion of Lebanon. And all of my responses to you have made that abundantly clear.
I want Israel to consider that the effects of that. I want us to make that plain to them. There's no indication they need to invade in order to achieve their aims or that it would go well (history says it wouldn't).
Taking issue with a specific policy or action because it's not in our interest is not demanding they cower to Hezbollah. Because it's been seriously suggested by several people within Israel's government. And why did Iran sponsor them?
You should do some reading on Iran's relationship with the Houthis and how that changed after 2015. I'd recommend starting with Thomas Juneau, who has written a lot on this topic. I'm pointing out that sometimes our policies result in bad outcomes that have negative consequences down the road (such as invading Iraq); sometimes those bad outcomes are forseeable and could be avoided. Like avoiding a regional war that may not be necessary to achieve the ends sought. It's a strawman when you make up stuff no one said which is pretty much all you've done in this thread.
Yes, they are dealing Hezbollah, and in a way that can keep this a limited war. That would be preferable. Escalating to a ground invasion is where we need to say we're out.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 21:20:31 GMT
Up to a point, and that point being where their actions don't negatively impact our interests. That's not an unreasonable position. For the millionth time now, this point has not been getting through to you... It is not their actions that are negatively impacting our interests you are concerned about. It is the response from others in the region. Again, your brilliant foreign policy here is to let thugs in the region dictate to us what our foreign policy should be because you are uber scared they might get upset. Never mind the stupidity of such a vague position... that you support Israel defending themselves, but only up to whatever point that makes others in the region too mad. Give me a break with this chickenshit, unprincipled BS. I don't have to ask any damn thing. It was you who came on here saying screw Israel if they want a war. It is not Israels war in Gaza. It was Israel's response to Hamas attacking them, raping their women, killing families in their homes, gunning kids down at a concert, torturing people, and taking Hostages. Our forces are being targeted because there are bad people in the region, that is not Israels fault nor their fault because they are destroying the thugs who did what they did to them. And your response is to cower to the thugs. Mocking your shit positions on here is not a personal attack. You should feel bad though for the garbage you post. I have not made up anything. AFTER the fact. The context of my post was to say what you initially said. That was abundantly clear. Yeah, your initial post here was some flippant response about screw them if they want to start a war... that we wouldn't help them. You are not asking them to consider anything, you are just outright saying we shouldn't support our ally because you are scared about other thugs in the region getting mad. If it comes to a ground invasion to stop them... you certainly are demanding they cower or we should abandon them. Then clearly they don't think things are working... You have more care for Iran than you do Israel. Holy crap. "our" policies? You just got done complaining when I said us before... If the region chooses to engage in a larger war because Israel is defending themselves from Hezabollah, that is on the region, not on Israel or us for supporting them. And us not backing Israel because folks like you are scared of what others will do in reaction only gives them more incentive to threaten those kinds of reaction. Nope, just mocking your bad flippant comment about abandoning Israel. Escalating... you keep using this BS language. Is it not an escalation on Israel's part to continue to fight to get Hezbollah to stop their aggression. Hezbollah escalated this. You think the status quo is that Israel must live with near-daily missile attacks... just absurd.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 23, 2024 21:55:28 GMT
For the millionth time now, this point has not been getting through to you... It is not their actions that are negatively impacting our interests you are concerned about. It is the response from others in the region. Again, your brilliant foreign policy here is to let thugs in the region dictate to us what our foreign policy should be because you are uber scared they might get upset. Never mind the stupidity of such a vague position... that you support Israel defending themselves, but only up to whatever point that makes others in the region too mad. Give me a break with this chickenshit, unprincipled BS. And if there's no ground invasion, there's nothing for them to respond to. It's about managing the conflict and how it affects our interests.
You just don't have an answer.
So, Israel is not a party to that conflict? You're just nitpicking at things now instead of addressing the substance of the post.
And they don't have to be targets if we can help it.
Calling people cowardly is a personal attack, and the only reason you're doing it is because you don't have any actual argument. You want to target the poster instead.
And still not addressing it.
Yeah, and what I initially said had to do with an invasion of Lebanon. That's the quote I was responding it. Trying reading the whole post next time.
We shouldn't help them invade Lebanon, and I've explained why. You haven't actually addressed any of those points.
You're such a manly man. So tough. You'd give em hell I'm sure. I don't think a ground invasion is necessary to achieve their aims. I think it would be a bad idea that probably ultimately undermines those aims and ours. Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s was the catalyst for Hezbollah in Lebanon (that didn't happen is vacuum either; see Ronnen Bergman's Rise and Kill First and Augustus Norton's Hezbollah: A Short History). Or there could be other considerations/motivations for doing so (see our invasion of Iraq).
So, you don't know?
First, what makes you think they're necessarily scared? The Houthis - in particular - have not been deterred by our actions thus far. Why would an Israeli invasion of Lebanon deter them? That action would likely cause them to escalate, leading us to respond and possibly escalate further (people have already called for sending troops into Yemen), and so on.
Second, what about the nuclear factor? Would this incentivize Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? That wouldn't be a good outcome.
There's more to foreign policy than acting tough. A ground invasion would be an escalation. It would be an escalation from missile strikes. States can escalate a conflict in response to attacks. There's this thing called an escalation ladder. Just because you don't understand terms and how they're used doesn't make it "BS language." It just means you don't understand the language or the concepts. Right, because that's what saying they have a right to defend themselves and are handling the issue means in the land of make believe.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 22:22:21 GMT
And if there's no ground invasion, there's nothing for them to respond to. It's about managing the conflict. No, it is about your unprincipled, cowardly idea of foreign policy. You told me I had to ask a question... now you say I don't have an answer to a question I am supposed to be asking. Come back when you want to make some sense. Just as you ignored the substance of my comment here. Asking me a dumb rhetorical question is not a response to your continued crappy language of putting the blame on Israel. You don't want to help it, you want to cowardly hide from the bad actors because you are scared of what they will do. It is a completely unprincipled position based on cowardice and giving in to the threats of bad actors. If you feel like a coward for pushing cowardly positions, that is your personal issue. Not mine. You can't respond to what I am saying so you feign outrage over this instead. Your position here was not on helping them, it was on flippantly calling for us to abandon them. This is a personal attack... because you can't actually engage honestly here. Yet again, you blame Israel. In your world, Israel is just supposed to take their people getting assassinated and rockets launched at them, then blame them for the continued aggression when they fight to defend themselves. The instigation always starts with Israel for you. You never blame the bad thugs or hold them accountable for their actions here in any of your comments. It is pathetic. It is a cowardly, unprincipled position and yet again you avoid what I said. I said IF they invaded. Yeah, I get that you don't think Israel should do anything if it upsets anyone else in the region too much. Ah, I see, now you have conspiracy theories. I am not interested in the typical Demos obfuscation game here. I said folks like you were scared. Any other random questions you want to ask to play your usual obfuscation game? They are already developing a nuclear weapon. They are already incentivized to develop a nuclear weapons. Are any other stupid questions based on your cowardly notions of appeasement? Yeah, I get that... your notion of foreign policy is acting like a coward and abandoning our ally. Ah yes... it would be an escalation from your wanting Israel to just get attacked with missiles day after day... again, the issue is not that I don't understand the term, its your absurd use of it. See... lets say you are on the ground getting your ass kicked. They just keep kicking you and you can't stop them by just laying on the ground. I come along and say, if you get up and throw them on the ground to defend yourself, well, that is an escalation and you are on your own bud. I don't want to upset the other bullies on the playground. If they see you get up and defend yourself any more than you are doing by just covering your head, they might get mad. It is an absurdly dumb position. So... if it comes to an invasion to stop Hezbollah, they have a right to defend themselves and you think we should back them in that? [/div]
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 24, 2024 14:42:54 GMT
No, it is about your unprincipled, cowardly idea of foreign policy. Which you haven't actually offered any substantive counter to. And when you respond to this, you'll just say you don't have to because it's a cowardly position. Tiresome. You have no substance. You're not even a mile wide, just an inch deep. Following our interests and putting those first is an unprincipled position? Just because I view Israel as another state whose actions may conflict with our interests doesn't make my position unprincipled. And it's entirely consistent with past U.S. actions. I don't feel cowardly. I think you're just trying to compensate for your own inadequacies by lobbing charges at people. And that has been expounded on in numerous posts; you've just chosen to not address those points. You were never honest. Your entire interaction here has been lies and distortions. It's a simple historical fact. What most people would do with that is look at the consequences of these types of actions and try to learn from them, ask questions about what the ramifications and blowback from certain policies would be. Obviously, you're not one of those people. What you said wasn't avoided. Why we shouldn't support a ground invasion was addressed again - a point you continue to avoid addressing on its merits. You just keep repeating the same things over and over. You don't pay much attention to the news do you? Or history? Or anything really I guess. Right, because you don't know. So, you did. My point still stands though. I can ask a lot more questions. You'll avoid them all though. All you're going to do is parrot the same phrases over and over and over. They are enriching uranium, but they're not developing a weapon; that comes from our own IC assessment: "Apparently confirming persisting gaps in Iran’s nuclear weapons knowledge, the 2024 U.S. Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment observes that 'Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device.'" ( CRS) The doctrine laid down by the Ayatollah also forbids it, but some segments of the Iranian state are pushing to change that.
You should read more. When Israel's actions conflict with our interests, we should prioritize our interests. The same way Ike did during the Suez Crisis (even going so far as to threaten Israel with sanctions if they didn't comply with the UN resolution). Or Reagan when he suspended the delivery of F-16s to Israel after their Osirak strike, suspended the strategic operation agreement after Israel seized the Golan Heights, or - and this is particularly relevant - suspended the transfer of arms again after Israel invaded Lebanon.
Cowards! You're continuing to show you don't understand the term and its use in military conflict. Israel isn't getting its ass kicked. But thanks for another dumb analogy and the continued demonstration that you don't understand escalation.
They're defending themselves. An invasion isn't necessary to do that. It might even be counterproductive to that end (see prior invasions of Lebanon, or what's happening in Gaza right now). And most importantly for us, it would harm our stated interests.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 24, 2024 15:18:05 GMT
Which you haven't actually offered any substantive counter to. And when you respond to this, you'll just say you don't have to because it's a cowardly position. Tiresome. Sure, when you choose to ignore what I say. Of course, you don't think criticism of your cowardly position is substantive. Shocker! I have reduced you to lousy platitudes. That is your excuse, the unprincipled position here is that you more cowardly fear the response of thugs than doing what is right. Supporting our ally in in our interests. Seeing the defeat of a terrorist proxy of Iran is in our interests. Seeing Israel win this fight is in our interests. Lots of things are in our interests, but you are here making the cowardly argument that we should be fearful of how thugs will react to doing the right thing and you would abandon our ally over it out of your spite. Then quit crying about personal attacks. I have addressed your points. This is what folks like you do, you have every opportunity to point out the lie, to make your case, and you hide behind the vague accusations instead. As it is also just a simple historical fact of what preceded where you want to start the clock as well. You want to only start your view of history at the mark where you can blame Israel, not what occurred before. Over and over again, you want to do more to side with and appease the thugs than support Israel. Of course you keep avoiding it. You are still avoiding it. I did not ask you to explain why we should or should not support a ground invasion, I asked you what IF they do invade... and yet again, you run away. When you have more than rhetorical questions trying to make a point, let me know. Nope, this is just what you do with obfuscation. No, it doesn't. It was a rhetorical question mocking your asking questions to obfuscate. What a BS dishonest answer. The point of enriching uranium is part of developing a weapon. I can read just fine. No, you are playing into the cowardly fear of what regional thugs might do. It is a hypothetical based on fear that could start anytime... what if those thugs threaten war if Israel continues to exist... do we abandon them in total? Your position is a chickenshit one. I understand just fine, feel free to explain how I am not. If you can. Thanks for showing you don't understand what an analogy is and you ignored it because you can't actually put up a good argument in response other than, nuh uh! Yet again you run and hide from answering the question. I know why, its because it exposes the stupidity of your position here.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Sept 24, 2024 15:53:18 GMT
Sure, when you choose to ignore what I say. Of course, you don't think criticism of your cowardly position is substantive. Shocker! I have reduced you to lousy platitudes. That is your excuse, the unprincipled position here is that you more cowardly fear the response of thugs than doing what is right. Supporting our ally in in our interests. Seeing the defeat of a terrorist proxy of Iran is in our interests. Seeing Israel win this fight is in our interests. Lots of things are in our interests, but you are here making the cowardly argument that we should be fearful of how thugs will react to doing the right thing and you would abandon our ally over it out of your spite. Then quit crying about personal attacks. I have addressed your points. This is what folks like you do, you have every opportunity to point out the lie, to make your case, and you hide behind the vague accusations instead. As it is also just a simple historical fact of what preceded where you want to start the clock as well. You want to only start your view of history at the mark where you can blame Israel, not what occurred before. Over and over again, you want to do more to side with and appease the thugs than support Israel. Of course you keep avoiding it. You are still avoiding it. I did not ask you to explain why we should or should not support a ground invasion, I asked you what IF they do invade... and yet again, you run away. When you have more than rhetorical questions trying to make a point, let me know. Nope, this is just what you do with obfuscation. No, it doesn't. It was a rhetorical question mocking your asking questions to obfuscate. What a BS dishonest answer. The point of enriching uranium is part of developing a weapon. I can read just fine. No, you are playing into the cowardly fear of what regional thugs might do. It is a hypothetical based on fear that could start anytime... what if those thugs threaten war if Israel continues to exist... do we abandon them in total? Your position is a chickenshit one. I understand just fine, feel free to explain how I am not. If you can. Thanks for showing you don't understand what an analogy is and you ignored it because you can't actually put up a good argument in response other than, nuh uh! Yet again you run and hide from answering the question. I know why, its because it exposes the stupidity of your position here. The fundamental difference between us seems to be that you think we should just agree to whatever Israel wants to do, whereas I think we should prioritize our interests when those things conflict, just as we did with regard to the Suez Crisis and the occasions when Reagan did so. The same we do with any other ally. Israel is not some special case that justifies ignoring our own interests, and you've offered no argument why it should be a special case.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 25, 2024 20:17:51 GMT
The fundamental difference between us seems to be that you think we should just agree to whatever Israel wants to do, whereas I think we should prioritize our interests when those things conflict, just as we did with regard to the Suez Crisis and the occasions when Reagan did so. The same we do with any other ally. Israel is not some special case that justifies ignoring our own interests, and you've offered no argument why it should be a special case. Ah classic Demos... still obfuscating. Lets review... You flippantly asserted here that if Israel launches a ground invasion, then screw them; they are on their own if other people go to war against them in the region. The issue at hand is not that we should just agree to whatever Israel wants to do. You are not prioritizing any interests, you just want to abandon our ally if other hostile thugs in the region decide to go after Israel. It is not in our interests to cowardly slink away from hostiles in the region because they think Israel defending themselves too much is enough for them to engage in hostilities. Your position is a chickenshit cowardly one wanting to abandon Israel.
|
|