An important question we should be asking is why the US is insisting on escalating the war in ways that do nothing to improve Ukraine's position on the battlefield, and are similarly unlikely to hurt Russia in any meaningful way.

It's easy to understand the mechanism the Americans are using here: as Russia inches closer to victory, Moscow will be more and more reluctant to escalate. Conversely, the Americans will be able to provoke Russia in increasingly risky ways.

But why?

It appears they are seeking to raise the threat environment for its own sake.

Perhaps the sole purpose is to placate Kiev without any regard for the threat environment, but my sense is that at this point even Kiev understands that strikes into Russia will do nothing to improve their position in the war.

I don't see how he'd be any better on Israel, [...] — Mikie

Neither do I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Biden administration carries responsibility for things going to hell in a handbasket on their watch.

I didn't say there weren't any differences.

I know environmentalism is very important to you. The Biden administration's colossal failures of diplomacy vis-á-vis Ukraine and Israel are very important to me.

Comparing the Trump and Biden presidency, I think there's zero basis to argue that Trump was worse in any meaningful way.

Your choice is between Psychopath A and Psychopath B, and whatever groups of psychopaths they represent.

People may seek to keep Psychopath [Orange] out of the Oval Office, but everyone ought to understand it'd be a pyhrric victory at best.

The US political establishment is still the enemy of all things good and just.

Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. There is no lesser evil. Just different flavors.

Consider traveling to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Have you ever traveled to Israel, and did it include a trip to the West Bank?

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words - connecting all men to rape, this time through masculinity.

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women. — ToothyMaw

So you're a sexist too.

Great.

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by? — ToothyMaw

People aren't fruit. We don't treat fruit as individuals. We do with people. Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people. — ToothyMaw

Which begs the question why you can't stop talking about this feature that apparently doesn't define the groups, but which you chose to name the groups after anyway.

If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist? — ToothyMaw

Mostly this is just a vacuous statement. But yes.

Really what you are implying is "Men are rapists" - strictly speaking true, because some men are indeed rapists.

However, it's your failure to delineate and the insiuation that connects all men to rape that is particularly pernicious.

This is exactly how the worst kinds of propaganda function, by the way.

Yes, I think that must be right; your small brain cannot fathom that to address racism is not racist. — unenlightened

People here are not addressing racism, but perpetuating it.

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live. — T Clark

As I've made clear, I don't live in the US, so my taking of responsibility has nothing to do with it.

You're saying things that are overtly racist, and frankly some of it is just plain weird.

Who are these 'Black People' who apparently form a homogeneous group of needy victims looking to be saved and taken pity on, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?


Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features.

That US identity politics is so rank we could smell it from across the pond. Thankfully though, people here saw through that shit.

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing? — ToothyMaw

Yes, and clearly so.

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise.

Not to mention, it's beyond patronizing.

people living in the United States, who are almost certainly the beneficiaries of slave labor, — ToothyMaw

All people living in the US? Does that include people living in abject poverty? Quantify exactly what benefits you believe they received.

Okay, nobody has unreasonably abstracted anybody in this thread as far as I know. — ToothyMaw

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups.

Furthermore, the desire to throw these roadblocks [...] — ToothyMaw

Roadblocks, my ass. You're apparently unable to see how problematic this baseline approach to the problem is.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem.

One might have to ask themselves from where this desire comes to view people, rather than as individuals, as inherently part of a non-existent abstraction onto which one has slapped all kinds of nasty labels. The answer is usually pathological in nature.

I live in the Netherlands. :up:

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes.

That's why I can never quite understand why American politics is so absolutely rife with it.*


*Until I put my cynical hat on and realize polarization is the goal.

We both know a lump sum will solve absolutely nothing. (Nor did any of the better ideas that were thrown at these types of problems)

I don't live in the US, just to be clear.

That's not saying anything. — BitconnectCarlos

Keep clownin', bud.

"B-but Hamas..."

Ehud Barak said it best:

If I was [a Palestinian] at the right age, at some stage I would have entered one of the terror organizations and have fought from there, [...]

If you thought slavery were as deleterious as I say, and had generational effects lasting to today even, would you agree that reparations could be justified? — ToothyMaw

No - a hundred years ago, maybe - and I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit.

If you want something to feel guilty about the US has no shortage of atrocities it has committed in the here and now, and has never so much as apologized for. The victims are often still alive, and usually not doing well. Vietnamese mothers are still giving birth to deformed babies as a result of Uncle Sam's Agent Orange treatment.

Nah. Better ignore all that tangible suffering and instead go on endlessly about something with no clear living perpetrators and victims, so that no shit ever gets done, and if shit ever were to get done it would be a perversion of justice anyway.

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals.

I'm struggling to imagine how massive one's blinders must be to even take this idea seriously.

The monolithic 'White People' and 'Black People' have entered the building. Hang on while I get the popcorn, because this is going to be a banger.

They'll deliver as little as they can get away with.

Suppose they did nothing. Would you then vote Trump? My guess would be no, so why expect anything other than lip service?

I just don't get the overly vigorous defense for what is a shit sandwich either way.

You think the establishment gives two shits about climate or pollution? :brow:

My sense is that communism lost its appeal because history has quite convincingly shown dreamy idealists to be no match for the brutal power dynamics that govern a state with such a degree of centralized control.

Today there are no more communist states that promote themselves abroad in the way the Soviet Union did. With history speaking for itself, I doubt many young people see the appeal of communism.

The people it appeals to are the people who, probably somewhere during the '70s, were swayed by the utopian imagery, and who still are unwilling to acknowledge its failures. Why would they? The modern communist seems to live in places where there is no actual threat of a communist takeover.

It's a nice ideal that in reality unfortunately clears the way for Orwellian nightmares.

When it comes to the history of Syria and Lebanon, the French have been major influencers. Just like the British had a role with Mandate Palestine played a role in the conflict this thread is about. — ssu

Historically, sure. But contemporarily I see no point in spending time talking about whatever little bit of influence they might have. It's obviously the US and Israel who have rolled the nickels in the Middle-East for decades. They are principally responsible.

You of course don't even notice that what you are promoting here, that "Israel is doomed" is a talking point of the islamofobes on the right. — ssu

Well, then the islamophobes are right.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I have no problem in acknowledging that when it is.

Ummm... if a gun has an effective range of 2000 meters, the it can shoot 2000 meters forward and 2000 meters back. Guns, especially AAA can traverse 360 degrees. :snicker: — ssu

Anti-air range is always given in radius, not diameter, smart ass. Didn't they teach you anything in the army?

Do you have any idea of the curvature of the Earth? Have you ever been outside and measured distances? If you are next to the sea and let's say you are at 2 meter height, the horizon is then at 5 kilometers. But anything higher than on the surface of the water, you will see further. And obviously AAA are deploy in places they can see in the air. In fact, in aerial engagements it's extremely typical that targets are engaged (or could be engaged) in longer distances than 2 kilometers. By NATO standards weapon systems having only 2-3 kilometers of range are described "very short range".

And the simply fact is that drone do not huge literally the ground...only when they have wheels, but then they aren't airborne. Anyway, you have no idea what you are talking about, so just change the subject. — ssu

It's obviously you who has no idea.

I'm not talking about geographical draft. I'm talking about how geographical terrain factors make direct-fire engagements at equal elevation rarely exceed 2 kms.

That has been well-established since WW2, and hasn't changed significantly since. Most tanks are still zeroed in on ranges around 1.2km for precisely that reason, and the majority of engagements take place at ranges below even that.

The main problem with modern drones is their low flight altitude and their strong capability to use terrain masking (which is much greater than that of modern jets or cruise missiles). Hamas drones are literally loitering above Israeli troops. Where is the air defense? Why aren't they using AAA? Please, make an educated guess.

2-3km range is indeed very short in air defense terms, which is why AAA is used for close protection. This is exactly the problem with your suggestion of using that type of weaponry to cover a large area. How are you going to achieve overlap and mutual support to avoid defeat in detail? The 100km+ range systems that used to provide that are not (cost) effective against drones. Small drones they cannot even target.

Had you remotely known how modern air defense works, you would realize how absurd your suggestion even is.

And we are not talking about aerial engagements in general. We are talking about the effectiveness of AAA against drones in an area coverage role. This is what you were advocating. I understand you'd like me to change the subject, but we are not going to until you stop talking out of your ass.

Artificially kept down? Have you any knowledge of Lebanese or Syrian history and the state their in? Oh, it's just the US that has put them there (of course by your thinking). You might put the blame more on the French than the US, actually. — ssu

The French? Haha.

The US' vast amount of interventions by various means in the Middle-East had as its goal to prevent regional powers from rising, and it has been very successful at that.

This is obvious. If you're expecting me to give you page-long history lessons on every single country it invaded or otherwise destabilized you're mistaken.

How does it actually shift? — ssu

Mainly via consolidation of power and the acquisition of modern weaponry. They don't need to grow in any other regard - they have massive populations compared to Israel, and Israel is pinned down by minor players like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yeah, well, AAA or any kind of Air Defence isn't designed how you think. — ssu

You're the one advocating dotting the entire Israeli landscape with 2 km AA bubbles. Making such arguments and then holding up the pretension of understanding by referring to WW2 is not very convincing.

And btw they would be 4 km bubbles — ssu

No, they wouldn't. AAA relies on line-of-sight, and engaging targets at equal elevation rarely happens at ranges exceeding 2 kms simply because of geographical factors. (Terrain-hugging drones, remember?)

The idea that the Israelis are going to dot their entire country with 2 km AA bubbles (or even 4 km ones) is just not a serious argument. The whole principle of modern air defense is to have long-range overlapping systems to avoid defeat in detail. AAA is used for close protection of military units, and sometimes as a last line of defense for important structures. Not area coverage.

So I'll just repeat: drones aren't a miracle weapon as some hype them to be. — ssu

Every nation in the world is currently scrambling how to understand, combat and use drone technology.

No one used the term 'miracle weapon', but this is just the reality of modern warfare.

When crappy, dirt-cheap Iranian drones can defeat anti-air systems that cost billions to produce, we can speak of a revolution in warfare.

Besides, you keep referring to how effectively Iran's strike was repelled, but you ignore the context of that strike which I already told you. The Iranians were not seeking to do massive damage, but to send a message while avoiding escalation and potentially dragging the US in.

Israelis have far enough incentives to defend their country. Somehow you seem not to understand this, perhaps being yourself a citizen of a country that faces no existential threat from it's neighbors. It might hard for you to fathom this. For Israelis it isn't hard at all.

The Israeli right has convinced, unfortunately, enough of the Jewish citizens that there cannot be peace with Palestinians, that this is the reality they will endure. — ssu

I never said they wouldn't try to defend themselves. I'm saying in the long run it isn't going to matter considering their circumstances. They are geopolitically and strategically utterly compromised, as I've shown you per the list of essentially unsolvable issues that Israel has.

And actually people like you only strengthen these kind of attitudes with saying that the country is doomed, which reeks to islamofobia. — ssu

:yawn: Zzz....Baseless insinuations of racism reeks of intellectual exhaustion and doesn't bode well for whatever else you have to bring to the table.

Has anyone been able to come up with a credible explanation for Ukraine's incursion into Kursk yet?

Let us ask the simple question: "Cui bono?"

Hypothetically, what country might want Ukraine to be unable to sit down for negotiations before a certain, hypothetical election that may take place in the Autumn?

Hmmmm..... :chin:

It's objective is first to survive, which it meets. It doesn't have peace, but still it can keep it's Apartheid system up, which is far enough for the Likud party. — ssu

Sure, but geopolitically its days are numbered.

It can survive, for now. How long can it survive?

It is surrounded by Arab nations which have been artificially kept down by US power (regularly with Israel's help). The US could do that because it was the unipole, which it no longer is.

When the US is no longer able to keep regional players in the Middle-East down, and Israel has no prospects of either expanding or becoming a normal country in the region, it's just a matter of time before it's strangled geopolitically.

The problem for Israel is that it has given its neighbors every possible reason imaginable to not treat it kindly when the balance of power shifts.

A simply ZU-23-2 has an effective range to 2200 meters and larger guns usually to something like 5 kilometers. A gatling-gun type system can be far more devastating for even a swarm of drones. Let's just remember that first uses of drones were to be practice targets or tow a target sock for AAA. And altitude you ask? Well, usually AAA can shoot ground targets too, so low flying drones can fly as low as possible. — ssu

Just like tanks, AAA systems are limited by line of sight and cannot shoot through buildings, terrain or dense canopy.

Practical engagement ranges for low-flying targets will rarely exceed 2,000m, simply because geography generally doesn't allow for anything more.

And that's assuming fire-control radars are able to accurately distinguish low-flying drones from terrain features. (We see many videos of drones just loitering above Israeli troops)

Now, Israel is a tiny country, but if you have to create a defense network out of 2km bubbles I think you see the problem. This is simply not what AAA was designed for.

And your consistently failing to describe the way that somehow they would lose the ability to control the area they have taken in 1967. Or earlier. How will Israel perish you fail utterly to say, only repeat that in the long run they will lose. — ssu

- It's a tiny country with zero strategic depth
- It is beset by adversaries on all sides
- Has no hard connection to its strategic allies or foreign markets
- Half its territory belongs to other countries
- Has illegally annexed a site which is holy to some 2 billion Muslims, and repeatedly and deliberately provokes them.
- Is committing widespread atrocities
- Is governed by radical loonies
- Is occupying a people roughly equal its own population

In what world is it not obvious Israel is not going to survive the test of time?

I can't give you a detailed step-by-step, because this isn't going to happen tomorrow. I'm just following the trend that the US is losing its grip on the region and a regional power will take over.

That's all it takes for Israel's vulnerabilities to become critical, because only via complete US dominance of the region can it keep its sea and airspace uncontested.

Ironically, Israel might turn itself into a fortress. A giant Gaza 2.0, if you will. But that is no solution either. The power balance will only shift further and further against it, until eventually it caves.

Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is. — Benkei

Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?

I'd say the human right to bodily autonomy weighs quite heavily here, but by that same logic are people who advocated for vaccine mandates degenerates as well?

No I'm not. Your simply not understanding, it is as simple as that.

Israel has the ability and likely the objective to destroy an armed force that attacks it or will likely attack it (hence the pre-emption). That ideally takes those famous six days or some weeks. But not years. It cannot solve the internal problems of Lebanon and it simply cannot be a "benign occupier" that would be tolerated. In truth there are footage of Israeli tanks roaming into Lebanon with locals clapping their hands. They were doing this because they were fed up with PLO in Lebanon. But it didn't last long until Israel's tactics of fire first and ask questions later made the local population hate them.

Yet Israel has learnt from Lebanon, that it cannot stick around as an occupying force. It can destroy the weapon systems, eliminate the enemy forces, but that's it. And if you would (which you likely don't) follow the debate in Israel and with it's military (usually with retired high ranking officers making the critique), this is even what Bibi's government is actually rightly criticized now: that it doesn't have a plan after Hamas active members are destroyed in the way that they don't pose an imminent threat anymore. — ssu

This is a long-winded way of saying Israel has no way of decisively defeating its adversaries, and therefore no long-term solutions for the problems that plague its borders, which was exactly my point.

Drones are engaged with cheaper weapon systems and usually with AAA systems. A Cold War SPAAG like the Gepard can indeed shoot down drones, if it's target acquisition is programmed to pick up small targets. — ssu

Mhm. And what do you reckon is the effective engagement range of AAA firing against low-flying drones?

See the problem yet, genius?

It cannot occupy, hold the land for long of it's neighbors. That is different from going on the offensive. It does go on the offensive... basically daily. How many times Israel has made air strikes in Syria during the Syrian Civil war and even before it? Multiple times, so many times I've lost count. Hence it can indeed go on the offensive. — ssu

You've already said it yourself - it cannot go on the offensive in any way that achieves long-term solutions to its problems.

Bicker about terminology all you want, but this is obvious.

And do understand that the current Israeli leaders are perfectly OK with a forever war. — ssu

Oh, they might be ok with it. But they will also lose that war in the long-term.

It doesn't take a genius to see where it will leave Israel once US power wanes and some Arab power grows to be a regional power. It will be curtains.

And then the US Indian relations: — ssu

You don't believe all that nonsense, do you?

Those are just words.

Of course the Indians are going to play nice as long as the US is powerful.

Just because they view the US as a threat, doesn't mean they are going to pick a fight with it.

Perhaps you should look into US involvement in Pakistan and Bangladesh - the two vital trade corridors that connect India to the rest of the world. Maybe then you'll understand what the Indians really think of the US and why they've chosen to align to BRICS instead.

Hence the urge for "Pre-emptive" attacks: simply fight on your neighbors territory. As Israel has done. — ssu

You're contradicting yourself. According to your own views Israel cannot go on the offensive, thus cannot rely on pre-emptive attacks to protect itself.

Somehow it has gone past your radar that Iran attacked Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles on the evening of April 13th this year. That's over 300 stand off weapons used in one coordinated attack. Oh but for you "Israel's air defense would stand no chance".

Because why? — ssu

Because the purpose of that strike was to maintain credible deterrence while avoiding escalation.

That's why they signaled their attack far in advance, and even communicated the details of the strike with the US.

Still the Israelis required the help of various allies to stop this strike, and still the strike actually succeeded in hitting Israeli targets.


Ukraine has made it quite clear how vulnerable modern air defense systems are to modern tactics, and Israel would crumble like a crouton under the types of attacks that Ukraine is enduring.


It's simple math. Iran produces a thousand drones for the cost of a single modern anti-air missile.

The air defense system that can combat that with any degree of cost-effectiveness has yet to be invented.

We haven't even started talking about the rest of their arsenal.

The drone swarm hype is really...hype. — ssu

This is just a silly thing to say when literally every military in the world is investing in large-scale use and combatting of drones.

Drone warfare has greatly undermined lynchpins of Western air defense systems like Patriot, since the drones are too cheap and numerous to effectively combat them.

Why would it be an Afghanistan-like quagmire? — ssu

As you have said yourself, Israel cannot go on the offensive, and neither can the US. So it's a forever war.

So what is the US going to do? Sit there and hope the war ends someday while wasting billions?

You really haven't thought this through have you?


The US and cronies couldn't even get rid of the Houthi's missile threat, even though they are threatening a crucial trade bottleneck. Why?

Because they cannot commit to anything outside the Pacific that is directly related to China. The days that the US empire can "walk and chew gum at the same time" are over, even if Lloyd Austin would have you believe otherwise.

Everybody knows it. China knows it. The Russians know it. The Iranians know it. Hezbollah and Hamas know it.

And Israel knows it, which is why it is panicking and trying to lobby US Congress to commit to war with Iran. Even they see the writing on the wall.

as if Brazil, India or South Africa see the US as a military threat. — ssu

Obviously they do. Imagine not seeing the US as a military threat.

The US has invaded less important countries over nothing. You bet your ass they view the US as a threat.

Everyone in their right mind should, and that's simply based on historical awareness. Potential great/regional powers like many of the BRICS doubly so, because US strategy is principally interested in stopping such powers from rising.

Israel is the size of a post stamp. It has zero strategic depth. You also seem to acknowledge Israel has no prospects of going on the offensive, so how exactly do you envision Israel standing any chance in a prolonged war?

Hamas alone was able to drain Israel's air defense system to critical lows in a couple of days. Hamas - they're nobody on the military power scale.

Against modern swarming tactics Israel's air defense would stand no chance. At that point, it becomes a sitting duck.

How do you envision this war playing out?

Israel's tiny airspace and coastline make its supply routes chronically vulnerable. Its overall lack of size means every inch of Israel is within striking distance of the enemy - energy production, food production, everything. Not to mention it would probably have a gigantic insurgency on its hands in the Palestinian territories.


It would need a US intervention, but what is the US going to do? Stick its head into an Afghanistan-like quagmire x100? That's the BRICS wet dream - for the US to commit to the mother of all forever wars trying to protect Israel.

Israel has a nuclear deterrence [...] — ssu

So did apartheid South Africa.

[...] and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. — ssu

It probably would lose even a dragged out conventional war because of its small population and strategic depth, but in all likelihood the conflict Israel will be faced with will be unconventional, and it will have to fight a massive insurgency within its own borders at the same time.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then.

The sole Superpower will also defend it, [...] — ssu

I've given you reasons as to why I believe that won't be the case. The scale of the conflict will be too large for the US to intervene, unless it wants to throw away its entire empire.

The US is not the sole superpower, by the way.

Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. — ssu

It's fighting Hamas, whose only weapon is desperation. And they were unable to defeat Hamas, despite committing war crimes en masse.

If you believe Israel's performance in its fight against Hamas should give it any confidence for the future we must be watching two different conflicts.

Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration. — ssu

Yes, Israelis have been leaving the country in their tens of thousands since the conflict in Gaza broke loose - more damage than Hamas could ever hope to inflict through physical violence.

It appears many Israelis are seeing the writing on the wall.

Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. — ssu

No one is going to come to Israel's aid if shit truly hits the fan. The scale of that conflict will be way too large for any western power to risk their hide on. The Europeans can't, the US won't.

There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored. — ssu

On the contrary, almost the entire Middle-East has a bone to pick with Israel on various grounds. It is illegally occupying territory that belongs to several other countries, including Jerusalem. It is being ran by genocidal war criminals.

Genuine reasons abound, not to mention opportunism.

Ascribing value to unborn life doesn't seem like something that could only be argued by unreasonable, illiberal or archaic people. It's not uncommon to hear such opinions from secular people for example.

And enforcing stances and opinions on others via the democratic process is (unfortunately) the normal way in which states function.

'Degenerate' is a strong term, and I think you're being unreasonable in its use.

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies.

Furthermore, it is sitting on the most hotly-contested piece of real estate in world history, and is surrounded by several hundred million Arabs who all have a bone to pick with Israel on account of historical grievances, illegal occupations of foreign land, the appalling treatment of the Palestinians and its generally belligerent attitude towards the rest of the region.


Just like with Ukraine the only question is whether the US will come to its aid to save it from destruction.


In 1991 the answer to that question could have very well been 'yes', however today we see the US is under pressure from a united bloc which includes a peer competitor (China).

If the US had to divert its resources to fending off several hundred million Arabs in a quagmire of unimaginable scale, it would be curtains for the US empire. (To be clear, this would not be a conventional war) Note that the eventuality of existential conflict between the Arab/Muslim world and Israel is probably reason the US has no formal defense agreements with Israel.


As I noted before, the US is in the process of losing its grip on the Middle-East. When that happens, Israel loses its purpose and instead becomes a liability. When geopolitical interests no longer align, any ties the US may hold to Israel become purely sentimental and those won't survive long.

Given the growing status of Israel as an international pariah state and the impopularity of US support for it, it will be easy for the US to decouple from it.


Israel will become another US "ally" that has outlived its usefulness, and may then safely die.

Regardless of my own stance on the matter, I don't think there's anything particularly degenerate about pro-life stances, which usually focus on the value/protection of the unborn child.

But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy". — ssu

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill.


To put it differently, I believe the US realizes fully that it has helped create an utterly unsustainable geopolitical situation for Israel, but is content to keep Israel on this course because it suits American interests.

After all, if the US cannot maintain control of the Middle-East, then why should it care about what happens to Israel afterwards?

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. — ssu

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss.

One day in the not-so-distant future the US will retreat to its island, and Israel will be left to pay the price of decades of belligerence by itself.

At that point it will become clear who was played by who.

Oh please. It's a rare occasion when the US faces blowback from its cynical foreign policies.

Maybe if that happened a little more often the US public wouldn't be so oblivious to the ruin their nation brings on the world, hm?

This is not the type of debate I would directly touch even with a 10-foot pole, but from a bird's eye perspective I think it's a great example of how men and women are ushered into two camps by endless feeds of "news" and fear porn that expertly play on people's inherent vulnerabilities and insecurities vis-á-vis the other sex (possibly one of our strongest weaknesses), which fuels resentment.

The result is a dehumanized view of the other, entirely black & white "All women are X, all men are Y", etc.

I've noticed online media feeds forwarding this type of mental poison without any apparent reason.

The real question here is: where is all the fear porn coming from? Who is creating it and to what end?

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that.

And when interests align he uses the loonies as a lightning rod. That's why he has his rabid ministers saying the most outrageous shit.


Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves.


Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality.

Loonies are easy to control, much like emotionally-possessed citizens. They're irrational and delusional, so it's just a game of affirming their delusions.

It turns out one nation's looney is another nation's moderate, who has loonies of his own. :lol:

What a lovely, dysfunctional shitshow.