Israel is a domestic politics issue in the US. It is as simple as that: American democracy can have powerful lobbygroups (in this case especially the Evangelist Christians, not the American Jews) that dominate rule the political discourse. Just think how powerful the gun lobby is in the US.Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof
For any US President it's quite difficult to make a tough stance on Israel. Besides, US Middle East policy is and has been since the Gulf War a slow train wreck.So what's your point? — 180 Proof
Seems that the client has much power in this case over the provider.Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century. — 180 Proof
How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place?Really? What sort of policy changes would have made things better? — frank
So now several times the number of people killed in 10/7 have been murdered in Gaza. But it’s cool, because the intentions were good. Good guys never deliberately kill children. Or maybe they do, but it’s because they have no choice. Hamas is using them as human shields.
How depraved. — Mikie
How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place? — ssu
And how about not invading Afghanistan and fighting your longest war lived there because a financier of a tiny terrorist group that was successful in one strike? He btw. escaped to the sanctuary of Pakistan, but you didn't invade Pakistan. — ssu
Americans craved for revenge and blood after 9/11 and they had this wonderful hammer of the armed forces of a Superpower, — ssu
Please tell me the benefits after a war that killed 100 000 Iraqis gave in this case, really. Especially when the situation now is this like this:You're judging the justification for getting rid of Saddam, not the benefits of getting rid of a torturing tyrant on health of middle-eastern culture. — frank
(CNN, Dec 15th 2023) US and coalition forces in Iraq came under attack on Thursday afternoon, as the senior general overseeing US forces in the Middle East was visiting the region to meet with American troops and key leaders.
Multiple one-way attack drones were launched against Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, on Thursday, a US official said. There were no casualties or infrastructure damage reported.
The attack marks at least 98 against US and coalition forces since they began on October 17. The attack came as Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, was traveling in Iraq and Syria on Wednesday and Thursday. According to a CENTCOM post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Kurilla met with the Iraqi prime minister and other officials as well as the US Embassy team.
“The leaders discussed current regional and local security concerns with a particular emphasis on the attacks against US forces,” the CENTCOM post said. Kurilla then travelled to Baghdad, Al-Asad Airbase and Erbil Airfield.
In Syria, Kurilla met with “key partners” at various bases to discuss the ongoing defeat-ISIS mission.
“These visits provide valuable insights you cannot get without traveling to the region and seeing it first-hand,” Kurilla said in the CENTCOM post. “I came away with a great sense of pride in the professionalism, dedication, and competence of our incredible service members deployed in harm’s way.”
According to the US official, there have been 46 attacks on forces in Iraq, and 52 on forces in Syria, since October 17. There were three attacks on US and coalition forces in Syria on Wednesday. The leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia vowed this month to continue attacks on US forces “as long as Zionist crimes continue in Gaza and the American occupation continues in Iraq.”
Totally wrong. Please remind yourself just how that war was marketed to the US. It was the Mushroom cloud. Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden. Remember?The point of the Iraqi invasion was to democratize the Middle East. — frank
It was a lunatic gesture, but yes, those neocons really believed it. At least publicly: the Gulf War had been so easy, all the Arab states including Syria had come to be allies with the US. Soviet Union had given an OK. That was actually the moment when the US lost it's ability to create alliances, use diplomacy. Why bother?It was bold gesture. — frank
False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. They were looking for a moment and the successful terrorist attacks gave them that chance.↪ssu, Iraq was based on false/fabricated intel and later turned into a disaster. — jorndoe
And how much blame do you put to Pakistan and it's intelligence services, which created and backed and is still backing the movement? In my view this gave a very dangerous example to other countries how to handle the US: you can indeed burn the candle from both ends! Just give the nice photo-op of being in the coalition, and then aid and organize the other side too. I fear similar things are happening in the Middle East now also. You already had basically US allies on different sides of the Libyan Civil war (and now also in Sudan), hence the US doesn't have the situation in control. How great it is in Western Europe compared to other continents where the US wants to create alliances? Oh, but you have to pivot away from Europe.I think Afghanistan is different, though. Not so much due to the US rationale to catch Osama bin Laden (and end Al-Qaeda), but due to the takeover by extremist, anti-humanitarian Taliban (also 2001), whose wretched effects we can see today — jorndoe
As the Iraqi Parliament asked the US and other foreign forces to leave three years ago, this is a train wreck, no matter how you want to make it US policy in the Middle East something successful and meaningful. — ssu
Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)
And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral. — Mikie
False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. — ssu
Well, at least John Mccain was honest about it wanting the US to stay for 100 years in Iraq. (Naturally as they are staying in Germany, but anyway...)The US never intended to occupy Iraq long term. — frank
You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy?Why does Iraq asking the US to leave make the situation a train wreck? — frank
I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps they end up as an failed state, that maybe just barely surviving, but still surviving.If you're saying Iraq can't survive what it's been through, I'd say you're clearly wrong. — frank
You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy? — ssu
Foreign policy decisions matter — ssu
Not having peace and not having cordial if not friendly relations isn't a show of success — ssu
Yes I can. Why don't you try some. I buy the idea that the Palestinians are simply paying off, in installments, the debt incurred by almost (and at least) four generations of stupid and murderous behavior directed at Jews. And they keep increasing the debt! It is that simple. In all of this are there things to complain about, things that we all wish were different? Of course. But none of that addresses the basic problem: some Palestinians want to murder Jews and there are enough of them to create the whole problem - and from time to time they "refresh" and demonstrate their ambitions by actually murdering - wholesale - Jews. Now a question to you: in this Gaza/Israel dance, who do you think is really in control? I submit that the Palestinians are. Before Oct. 7 there was no war, and then Hamas set into motion that which could only result in war, a terrible war. Almost what we might call in a different circumstance suicide-by-cop. I view the Israeli reaction as essentially a police action, and one which will (should only) stop when the bad guys are apprehended.Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof
Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while. — Baden
It's a good question.I was looking for a more objective analysis. What American foreign policy would not have resulted in a trainwreck? — frank
Yeah, well their media isn't controlled by or scared of the Israeli lobby from America!Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys. — Baden
The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.