By that standard the United States and your own government should be proscribed organizations, both far more guilty of terrorism than Hamas.
"God save the Kin--"
"Alright, that's off to jail for you, then."
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
"God save the Kin--"
"Alright, that's off to jail for you, then."
See video evidence of Israeli soldiers destroying Gaza
Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit compiles evidence of potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
israel targets journalists because journalism is a threat to israel.
One of the few people Trump won against.
If you had told me this even a month ago, I would not have believed it. Netanyahu went to MIT, and yet Trump got the better of him.
If you had told me this even a month ago, I would not have believed it. Netanyahu went to MIT, and yet Trump got the better of him.
That one of the US's allies didn't get what they want from Trump doesn't mean Trump won, it's likely that the drunken darts toss just came out not in support of Israel this time.
I don't think Trump likes large-scale wars. He likely views people who end up in wars without gain as suckers. In that he, and campagin Obama were similar,, but Obama let the generals, and Hillary somewhat, and the republican-lite officials talk him into starting Libya, and the Afghan US Troop Surge. No world leader is willing to acknowledge this, because for some of them it goes against their interests but I don't think Trump is a large-scale warmonger like Bush Jr, or Putin even. I know he's not a neo-con.
It's also funny Tulsi being aligned somewhat with Indian interests helped since Iran gets along with India, and supplies some of their energy needs.
I would agree, but my concern (and that of, I expect, many world leaders), is that instead of having a deeply rooted desire for conquest, he ends up taking the US to war due to some stupid spur of the moment decision he makes.
We have nuclear weapons, and ours work. It's fine. And no country, not even Mexico, will be able to throw rockets at the US mainland so long as the US-land forces live.
That's of limited comfort for the people of any nation the US decides to bomb for no good reason.
If you're comfortable brushing off the risk of war just because you reason that we have the biggest guns, I think you might need a few reality checks. I’d invite you to look up the ‘shot heard round the world’ in 1775. That wasn’t supposed to be the start of a war—it was posturing, a show of force. But someone misfired, or got jumpy, and the rest is history. These things can spiral fast.
Now imagine the implications of that when we're talking about missiles rather than muskets. And remember, those are a hell of a lot more indiscriminate.
Hell, you could even watch WarGames (1983). Its climax famously plays out exactly that scenario, and is a striking portrayal of exactly this principle - that once someone gets jumpy, everyone follows suit, to catastrophic results if calmer heads don't manage to talk them down before things escalate. As so aptly put within the film: "The only winning move is not to play".
The mindset you’re insisting upon here assumes that your enemies will have more restraint than you do. That they'll see your willingness to escalate and choose not to respond in kind. But neither history nor human nature support that assumption. Especially not when the opening move shows a complete disregard for life as to put the nukes on the playing field.
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking "we're stronger, so we'd win" - though the truth is far less concrete than it might be in a video game where simple leveling can create an almost insurmountable advantage. When you find yourself thinking this way, you should make a conscious effort to reground yourself by thinking of the actual human cost.
Yes, a person - and a country - should have principles worth defending, even at great risk. But when war is sparked by posturing and saber-rattling? That’s not risking your life for your values. That’s dismissing the cost of war while mistaking superior firepower for a magic shield - and buying into a dangerous illusion of invincibility.
And on that note, I'd also recommend watching On the Beach (1959). I think it's actually available on YouTube right now. It's not perfectly accurate, but it's a sobering look at nuclear aftermath. At the very least, it reminds you what’s actually on the table when we act like brinksmanship as a harmless political tool. In the end nobody knows - or really cares - whose fault it was that things got so bad. They only care, and desperately try to forget, that cost was far too high, and that nobody realized it until it was too late.
And frankly, for all that I don't ever want to watch it again, I absolutely believe that On the Beach should be a required watch for anyone who holds the responsibility of making decisions that could lead to nuclear war.
One might also bring up the concept of a Pyrrhic victory, and that ensuring that the opponent loses worse isn't enough.
At least they/the US aren't invading your country this time, and for good reason, since that's expensive, and not worth it with AI/Space around the corner. Again, I played up Trump wanting to invade Greenland and Canada, but I am starting to think he just wanted the liberals in Canada to win(To keep them weak due to high welfare state spending), and for NATO to take Greenland's security more seriously.
The only countries with less restraint than the US on nukes are Russia, which is busy with Ukraine due to Biden clearly stating he will not defend Ukraine, and thus goading them into it, and Putin falling for it. North Korea, for which our ABM defense is enough, and Japan is building up its own. The weakest link, in my opinion, is South Korea, whose birthrate keeps falling, and we have seen people overrun automated turrets in Israel, for example. Iran could, in theory, have less restraint, but I suspect their nukes would be pointed at too many targets like Israel, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and then what few long-range missiles they have would be pointed at a US city, which we have enough ABM for.
China and India have even more restraint than the U.S. since both are densely populated in specific areas, so if a nuclear war were to happen, they would suffer the most. The UK is too. France, which has less restraint than the US, has its hands full with Western Africa and Russia. Pakistan is too busy with India, and their nukes don't have the range to target the US since it's mostly just fighter jets using it.
If Brazil, Canada, or Mexico had nukes, then it would get more serious for the US. And I didn't even mention that a 1/3 of these countries are US allies or in NATO.
That's...quite a take.
You really, really don't want to find out if your defenses against nuclear missiles are good enough. Also, that plenty of places outside the US would get hit instead of just the US isn't great comfort to the people living outside the US.
Okay, Gergar12, the foreign affairs analyst(the degree I have, and the most amount of classes I have, plus the economics one), who points out the plan for the joint chiefs' calculus, who watches video after video of US military vets, and people who read journal articles for a living, and Geospatial analyst essay talks.
Is not Gergar12, the guy who has friends and family in multiple countries, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and the US? The guys who would get shot in almost any regime that hates dissent. The guy who depends on international/foreign goods to keep life worth living/Costco. Who is neurodivergent, and at best, under any strict authoritarian regime would get sent to a work camp.
Edited: for grammar, and spelling.
Edit 2: Every dollar Canada spent on current goods/services the welfare state or any country for that matter is a dollar they can't spend on say immigrants, R&D, education, etc. And you get more future growth and power from future goods.
Last edited:
I mean, I think this is possible. Trump thinks that welfare makes everyone weak, especially the government. Trump is making a bad assumption here and I don't think any of this was thought out. Trump wanted to do a bunch of things he thinks is beneficial and the unintended consequence is Liberals winning in Canda. It's not planned and it's a terrible assumption
I thought we would have learnt after Covid. If you don't protect your populace right now, it negatively future growth and future goods. Much of the economic problems the US has today is a derivative of the lack of lockdowns in the US. This even includes companies pushing up prices unwarrantedly
There's a balance here. Sacrificing the future for the present doesn't help the present. And vice versa
Covid could have been prevented with a lockdown and a rapid response by the political management and leadership class not by universal healthcare. China and North Korea didn’t have it and the fare better than Taiwan who did have universal healthcare.
China didn't have COVID problems? Are...are you serious? There's literally an entire Wikipedia article about the 2019 COVID outbreak in China.
2019–2020 COVID-19 outbreak in mainland China - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You can say they got it under control quite a bit more rapidly than some, but to say that lockdowns could have prevented COVID entirely and using China as an example is...just wrong.