Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[tstorm823]

... calling for waterfront property to be built on mass graves.

This really isn't the criticism you think it is. Gaza is waterfront property. Its immediate neighbor is either the most wealthy and developed country in the region or close to it. Without the racial and religious conflicts, it could be a beautiful and prosperous city. Imagining that potential is hopeful, ambitious, progressive... Treating Gaza as some permanent living memorial of the crimes of Israel doesn't help anyone. You're criticizing Trump here for imagining a better future.

 

[Satinavian]

There is a single other nation on the planet that can remotely resemble a threat to the US, and you really have to squint. Do you really think it is illogical to ever take action?

Oh, that is easy to answer

- Self defence. If you are directly attacked by a state actor on a level that qualifies for "act of war"
- Help others in their self defense. Above requirements apply.
- Intervene based on a UN mandate.

That's it. And should applies universally, not just for the US.

 

[tstorm823]

- Self defence. If you are directly attacked by a state actor on a level that qualifies for "act of war"
- Help others in their self defense. Above requirements apply.
- Intervene based on a UN mandate.

So if I launder violence through proxies, claim self-defense, and manipulate the United Nations, nobody is ever rational to fight back?

 

[Agema]

The #1 stated goal was to degrade Iranian military capabilities which they bombed to smithereens

Plausibly. But that stance also looks like oversimplistic whitewashing away of a load of problems.

• Is that stated goal the actual goal?
• There have been multiple stated goals.
  • These undermine the idea that there is a #1 stated goal as you claim
  • Why kill Iran's leadership if the plan was to degrade its military?
  • Multiple justifications as PR strategy so useful idiots can cherry pick the best one if some fail (re. is the stated goal the actual goal?)
• Is the stated goal justified by the circumstances?
  • Iran's military capabilities have not substantially changed in a long time so why bomb them now?
  • Iran has only used its own military defensively or reactively, and there seems no good reason to assume this would change. US intelligence itself appears to have said there was no sign Iran was planning an attack.
  • Why did an action to degrade Iran's military seemingly trigger from collapsed talks on a nuclear program?
  • Why Iran and not many other countries that could threaten the USA and its allies?
• If the stated goal has been stated to have been achieved, why is the war still going?
  • The stated goal seems to have not been achieved in the timescale initially claimed, and indeed more military assets are being moved to the conflict zone - at minimum, this means the war severely did not go to plan.
• Is the stated goal justified by the costs?
  • Casualties (including Iranian), economic, political/diplomatic, military (e.g. depletion of stocks), undermining other major strategic aims
  • Contextually, inconsistent / misleading / false claims made by the Trump administration on the accomplishments of previous military action

Downstream of that, direct action inhibits their ability to prop up groups like Hamas and Hezbollah or even Russia to a limited extent. And all that is before concessions, which Iran is going to have to make to get out of this situation, as much as people might think they have the advantage in a war of attrition, you can't attrition an enemy that can kill any given individual at any time of its choosing, and is only stopping to have someone left to negotiate with.

You live in an alternative reality.

It's not that we live in an alternative reality, it's a divergence of worldview. My perception here is that most users here want our elected governments, who (theoretically) answer to us, to communicate with us clearly and honestly, and to use the power that they operate in our name wisely, responsibly, and generally within international law. To quote Shakespeare, "'it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant". There are very reasonable concerns about the justifications for this war being expressed.

You seemingly do not do not have any concerns, and prefer to witlessly cheerlead any mass murder your government feels like, unencumbered by doubts about whether it was wise, responsible, or worth the pain and suffering inflicted. That's not an alternative reality but your moral preferences. Might makes right. It's your prerogative to have that moral view of the world.

It's like the way you implored us to feel empathy for an ICE agent shooting a US mother in the head, but evidently can't spare anything to think, feel or say for the thousands of dead, wounded and further suffering from this war. It's the sort of way it's hard to determine any consistent value you hold other than support for the Republican Party.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This really isn't the criticism you think it is. Gaza is waterfront property. Its immediate neighbor is either the most wealthy and developed country in the region or close to it. Without the racial and religious conflicts, it could be a beautiful and prosperous city. Imagining that potential is hopeful, ambitious, progressive... Treating Gaza as some permanent living memorial of the crimes of Israel doesn't help anyone. You're criticizing Trump here for imagining a better future.

 

[Silvanus]

This really isn't the criticism you think it is. Gaza is waterfront property. Its immediate neighbor is either the most wealthy and developed country in the region or close to it. Without the racial and religious conflicts, it could be a beautiful and prosperous city. Imagining that potential is hopeful, ambitious, progressive... Treating Gaza as some permanent living memorial of the crimes of Israel doesn't help anyone. You're criticizing Trump here for imagining a better future.

What absolute horseshit.

60,000 civilians dead, mostly women and children. And his suggestion is to forcefully displace the survivors to build gaudy hotels and commercial property, all laid out in AI meme videos online.

And you think this is "hopeful" and "progressive". Its obscenity. This is perhaps why you think he has a "plan"; in your mind, half-baked suggestions of ethnic cleansing and memes are a plan. To grown-ups, they aren't.

 

[tstorm823]

You seemingly do not do not have any concerns, and prefer to witlessly cheerlead any mass murder your government feels like, unencumbered by doubts about whether it was wise, responsible, or worth the pain and suffering inflicted.

Someone asked here if we could say Trump is worse than Bush on the basis of this war, and I said if this drags for years, we can certainly say that at least on the war front. I can agree with concerns and doubts.

If Silvanus, for instance, was expressing doubts, I'd have no complaint. The simple switch to "I don't think they have a plan for what happens next" makes the comment completely justified. "Let's not forget they don't have a plan" is not an expression of concern or doubt, it's totally assured condemnation.

Nobody can say yet whether this will ultimately be worth the pain caused, even the surest proponent is going to have anxiety of it potentially going south, but that's not the same as those have decided with full conviction that there is no plausible justification nor possible positive outcome.

 

[tstorm823]

What absolute horseshit.

60,000 civilians dead, mostly women and children. And his suggestion is to forcefully displace the survivors to build gaudy hotels and commercial property, all laid out in AI meme videos online.

And you think this is "hopeful" and "progressive". Its obscenity. This is perhaps why you think he has a "plan"; in your mind, half-baked suggestions of ethnic cleansing and memes are a plan. To grown-ups, they don't.

Gosh, how dare they build functioning nations in Germany and Poland after the Holocaust! You know how many women and children died in Hiroshima? It's evil to build a city on their graves!

You're being silly.

 

[Silvanus]

Gosh, how dare they build functioning nations in Germany and Poland after the Holocaust! You know how many women and children died in Hiroshima? It's evil to build a city on their graves!

You're being silly.

No, you're engaging with a childish strawman, which is becoming quite a pattern with you.

Nobody opposes reconstruction. Do you think meme videos and that inane riviera document constitute a plan for actual reconstruction? Do you think the plan to reconstruct Poland or Hiroshima involved forcefully expelling the survivors to use their land for foreign casinos and glitzy hotels?

You're being hopelessly immature.

 

[tstorm823]

No, you're engaging with a childish strawman, which is becoming quite a pattern with you.

Nobody opposes reconstruction. Do you think meme videos and that inane riviera document constitute a plan for actual reconstruction? Do you think the plan to reconstruct Poland or Hiroshima involved forcefully expelling the survivors to use their land for foreign casinos and glitzy hotels?

You're being hopelessly immature.

Every major project everywhere involves moving the people and buildings in the way. You're describing eminent domain as genocide.

 

[Silvanus]

Every major project everywhere involves moving the people and buildings in the way. You're describing eminent domain as genocide.

I can't quite tell whether you're entirely ignorant of what your government actually suggested, or whether this is a cynical effort to downplay it.

To assume the former. No: eminent domain involves compulsory purchase for public work. It has absolutely nothing to do with the forced removal of a population from their home political territory, mass expulsion from a political territory, or internment in camps.

The term most commonly understood for forced mass expulsion of an ethnic group from their territory is not "eminent domain", but "ethnic cleansing".

 

[Seanchaidh]

So if I launder violence through proxies, claim self-defense, and manipulate the United Nations, nobody is ever rational to fight back?

why do these 'proxies' exist?

 

[Hades]

Every major project everywhere involves moving the people and buildings in the way. You're describing eminent domain as genocide.

Sure but this isn't every major project. This is a bunch of corrupt real estate guys drooling over what to do with an area depopulated, if not downright genocided in part by their own actions or at least support. And that their plans don't factor in the people living in Gaza is obvious. Trump and Kushner would never, ever do right by them or anyone outside their creepy little club.

Who are they even going to build neo Gaza for? And who's going to profit from it?

They support Russia invading Ukraine

That might have been worthy of consideration if Iran being bombed weakened Russia instead of giving them a cash influx and increasing our problems.

but they actively encourage disfunction, and stand deliberately in the way of things like peace in Gaza

So does Bibi but his country didn't get dombed.

No one says Iran's a little angel. Just that there's no cause to so suddenly declare an ill thought out war and cause problems for everyone.

 

[Seanchaidh]

it was supposed to be an Iranian terrorist group (with oddly Zionist vocabulary in the public messaging claiming responsibility), but then the suspects are released on bail? wild.

 

[Satinavian]

So if I launder violence through proxies, claim self-defense, and manipulate the United Nations, nobody is ever rational to fight back?

Basically yes.

Proxies are a difficult question because they exist on the step between a criminal organisation which would be a job for the police and a proper nation which would be something an army can defend against. Don't forget that many "proxies" actually claim to be some legitimate gouvernment and it is us who don't want to humor them.

But luckily we have the UN to allow action against proxies. Which it did regularly in the past. We don't need a blanket permit for invasion if some proxies are involved. The proxy escuse has been abused way too often.

 

[tstorm823]

why do these 'proxies' exist?

To launder the violence, from one perspective. They all have their own motivations, but so does the random hillbilly in the US that wants to burn down the government, the people sending the hillbilly missiles are a more serious question.

No one says Iran's a little angel. Just that there's no cause to so suddenly declare an ill thought out war and cause problems for everyone.

If you can't admit that there are reasons, the ill-thought belongs to you. If you feel compelled to reject every justification even existing in order to reach your conclusion, if you can't see and acknowledge the points and still disagree, then your disagreement is meaningless.

 

[Silvanus]

If you can't admit that there are reasons, the ill-thought belongs to you.

"No reason" very obviously means "no good reason". I acknowledge that some reasons exist: the hope that successful regime change overseas will boost midterm election prospects; arms manufacturers' profits; oil; deflection from domestic scandals; an obsession with projecting a 'strongman' image; insider trading.

Deliberate obtuseness is not a particularly clever way to discuss things.

 

[tstorm823]

"No reason" very obviously means "no good reason". I acknowledge that some reasons exist: the hope that successful regime change overseas will boost midterm election prospects; arms manufacturers' profits; oil; deflection from domestic scandals; an obsession with projecting a 'strongman' image; insider trading.

Deliberate obtuseness is not a particularly clever way to discuss things.

Your list of reasons deliberately excludes anything you could even slightly value. Can you really not see any positive potential outcome?

 

[Silvanus]

Your list of reasons deliberately excludes anything you could even slightly value. Can you really not see any positive potential outcome?

It doesn't deliberately exclude them. I have yet to see indication that any positive reasons factored into the decision-making at all. All his communications thus far are treating it either as a tantrum or a game.

 

[tstorm823]

It doesn't deliberately exclude them. I have yet to see indication that any positive reasons factored into the decision-making at all. All his communications thus far are treating it either as a tantrum or a game.

So you love the Ayatollah and the IRGC, eh?