This is scary

[Moses]

3 hours ago, forky123 said:

You mean citizens of the US have committed the most mass killings of civilian, not the US which would suggest it's government did the killings. I wonder how many years of mass killings would need to occur to match the number of people killed during Stalin's purges?

The significant difference btw Stalin's USSR and US is just fact, what Stalin's repressions killed citizens of USSR, while US govt prefers to kill citizens of other countries.

US is the only country in world which made nuclear bombing of civilians by wiping 2 cities in Japan.

[Moses]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

More Than 700,000 Ukrainian Children Taken To Russia Since Full-Scale War Started, Official Says

Who is your dealer?

Your 'officials" are stupid or manipulators.

Number 700000 is officially exists in Russian report, but there is clear declared what this is number of kids who ran to Russia with parents, totally Russia accepted 4.8 millions of Ukrainian refuges and 700000 of them were kids.

 

[stevenkesslar]

6 minutes ago, Moses said:

Your 'officials" are stupid or manipulators.

In other words, you agree with international agencies, like the UN, when they call out other war criminals for genocide.

When international agencies instead call out Murderous Vlad for being a genocidal war criminal, they are "stupid" or "manipulators."

Help me out, @forky123.  What's the word for that?

hypocrite

noun

hyp·o·crite ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit 

2

: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

[Moses]

17 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

In other words

"In other words" Israel already killed 6 times more kids just in 2 weeks, than number of kids who died in almost 2 years because of military conflict in Ukraine.

Do you count Israel and Netanyahu with his generals and ministers war criminals? if so, then we may to talk who also are war criminals on this planet. If not, then you should read my first sentence in this post again. 

[stevenkesslar]

On 11/3/2023 at 4:52 AM, EmmetK said:

Israel will not leave Gaza before every inch of those tunnels and and terrorist command centers has been flooded and destroyed. Israel will not leave Gaza until Hamas has been eradicated. That is not genocide. It is called survival.

Thank you for being so precise about the tragic nature of the problem.

When Hamas kills 1500 or so Israelis, mostly women and kids, it is genocide.

When the IDF kills 9000 or so Palestinians, mostly women and kids, of course it is only and exactly what Israel needs to do to survive.  That's all.

If the IDF kills 90,000 Palestinians by the time it is done, that's just survival, too.  Duh!

If the IDF kills 900,000 Palestinians by the time it is done eradicating Hamas, that's just survival, too.  Is there a problem?

Besides, it's very good manners for the IDF to drop leaflets on innocent Palestinians who are trapped in an open air prison before they blow they shit out of them.

The main problem with this approach is that "Hamas has been eradicated" is very much like the idea "Jews have been eradicated."  Except I think it sounds better in the original German. 

The following point is one of logic, not anti-Semitism.  Hitler actually had a plan to eradicate an entire people - Jews.  It never made sense as a plan, since he couldn't get his hands on most Jews in most parts of the world.  But, viewed as a plan, gas chambers at least eradicated a lot of Jews.  Without much collateral damage on people the Nazis did not want to kill.  Except, of course, the whole idea was so repulsive that it led to the massive killing of innocent Germans in things like fire bombings. 

It really doesn't seem to me that most Israelis have thought through how one thing tends to lead to another.   Although they may be gaining an awareness that empowering warmongers like Netanyahu for decades has lead to ....................... wait for it  ............................. more and worse wars with Hamas. Some of the smartest analysts around are saying October 7 is nothing compared to how bad the next war down the line will be.  I believe them.

Geez.  Who could possibly have seen that coming?  Certainly not the IDF.

We agree about one thing.  While I'm reading all stuff from all sides, including from the UN, what I find most useful is the stuff from the proponents of eradicating Hamas.  Mostly because it seems like if they are proponents of the idea, they ought to have some sort of clue about how it can actually be done.  And what the long-term consequences may be.

In that regard, here is a very long-winded essay that I would call a must read, written by a former IDF leader who is clearly on Israel's side.   With all due respect, the conclusion I reach is that the best military analysts around do not really have a clue.  Although at least Orion has a clue that it will be awful for Israel.  Not to mention Palestinians.  Even though it won't come close to the goal that "Hamas has been eradicated."

The End of Israel’s Gaza Illusions

This War Is Unlike Any Other—and Must Begin at Home

I think the thing I find most tragic and even sick about it is the idea the sub-header suggests, probably correctly.  A generation ago most Israelis and most Palestinians wanted to find a path to peace.  Now what the Israeli war planners are saying is that the entire nation has to commit first and foremost to "security."  And what "security" means first and foremost is war with Palestinians - wherever it goes, whatever it takes, and however long it takes.  That is in fact a formula for more and endless war.  Not peace.  The point is that Israelis are being told to put security, and war, above all else.  I don't agree, to say the least.  But apart from my moral objection, it does not even begin to make sense as a plan.

I won't comment on the military part, since I am anything but an experienced military analyst.  Other than I believe it when IDF leaders say this will be harder than any war we have ever fought.  With more blood and treasure extracted from Israel than ever before.

Here are the main parts of the political, diplomatic, and humanitarian consequences that seem illogical, and sick.  Sick in the sense that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing that never works, and somehow expect it work.

Quote

Once Israel has achieved its military objectives against Hamas, it will need to deal with larger questions. Global and regional partners, including the Gulf states, as well as the members of the Abraham Accords and Israel’s older regional partners, Egypt and Jordan, will be critical in supporting a moderate, legitimate, and responsible Palestinian administration; providing political backing and financial support; and helping it face the daunting task of reconstruction, governance, deradicalization, and stabilization.

Quote

Delegating security and basic governance to moderate Palestinian groups would be in line with the approach taken by Israel’s defense establishment toward the West Bank, where Palestinian security forces share Israel’s goals of countering Hamas and other extremist groups. But it is much less in line with the current Israeli government’s right-wing members, who see the PA as an agent of terror that is no better than Hamas.

Quote

Although U.S. President Joe Biden has expressed his hope for a two-state solution, the current circumstances have made that vision seem beyond reach. Preserving the two-state option for the future was already a challenge, given the PA’s abysmal situation and Israel’s increasingly polarized politics in the years and months before October 7. Since then, it has become even more far-fetched. Yet Arab and Western leaders insist that the PA has to be part of the Gaza endgame. The PA itself, while unenthusiastic about actually governing Gaza, already links its role there with a wider framework addressing the Palestinian theater as a whole.

I would say this plan for "the eradication of Hamas" makes about as much sense as gas chambers made sense for eradicating global Judaism.  As a bumper sticker, the basic idea is this:

Let's just put aside the first sentence I quoted.  Other than to stipulate that even if the IDF can achieve its military objectives against Hamas, when that objective is defined as "eradication," it really means "a big setback".  And the almost certain death of at least tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.  Hamas will survive and regroup, and Palestinians will have more and deeper grievances.

To his credit, the author is honest about how the cultivation of "moderate" Palestinian leadership, while precisely the right goal, is anathema to Bibi the Butcher.  And always has been.  As the author states, correctly, Team Bibi has always seen the PA as being as bad as Hamas.  Even though the two organizations actually represent a little more than half of the population of Greater Israel.  How do you have peace when you define all the leaders of half the population as terrorists?  Answer:  you don't.  You have endless and worse war.  Did I mention that as Palestinian and ultra-Orthodox Jews who support Team War (even though they don't fight in them) have more kids, the demographic polarization only gets worse?

How does it work that the one thing that is required by the PA, regional Arab partners, and global US and European partners - a two state solution - is defined in IDF logic as "even more far-fetched" than ever?   It's a bit like saying that the right way to settle whether Biden or Trump wins in 2024 is to cancel elections.  It just makes no fucking sense.  Again, I think the author is being honest.  In this case implicitly, not explicitly.  Being a seasoned IDF guy, he of course knows that a military strategy to eradicate Hamas will of course kill lots of innocent people.  And piss pretty much the whole word off.  Which we are seeing already.  But, hey, so what?

As an American who is proud of America, including our military, perhaps I can't be objective.  Maybe it is true that a plan to invade Afghanistan to deter more terror and make it a better place, which 92 % of Americans supported, was always just a fucked up idea that was going to fail.  But at least 92 % of Americans did support it.  And we gave it what I view as an honest shot - with the explicit goals being democracy, peace, and economic development.  The fact that even that didn't work when the world's global hegemon tried it is a very dark warning to Israel.

This plan does not even have majority support.  Not in Israel.  And certainly not in the rest of the world.  It is a recipe for endless war, and endless bloodbath.

The plans sucks.

[vinapu]

On 11/3/2023 at 5:44 PM, EmmetK said:

 There NEVER was an independent Palestine.

 

so what? most countries independent now were never independent until they become one including that small state USA squeezed between Canada and Mexico. Only handful of  countries disappeared from map only to return years later - Lithuania, Poland , Czechia, Ethiopia, Egypt just to name a few

It could be argued that yes, relinquishing Gaza was Israel's mistake    but there was never talk about incorporation which could be making Gazan as citizens. Such solution would create own problem i.e dissolving Jewish status if country 

[vinapu]

15 hours ago, forky123 said:

Power stations are legitimate targets IF they are used to power military facilities. 

Legality is problem for losing side. Winner will almost certainly get away with illegal acts

[vinapu]

11 hours ago, Kostik said:

I like Nicaragua! Nuclear missiles should be installed there! The world must be protected from murderers, rapists and maniacs from the USA

You think murderers, rapists and maniacs from Nicaragua are any better ?

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Do you count Israel and Netanyahu with his generals and ministers war criminals? if so, then we may to talk who also are war criminals on this planet. If not, then you should read my first sentence in this post again. 

I think you are smart.  And we are both clear about what each other is saying.

I already called Netanyahu a "genocidal monster."  Although I watered it down by saying that is what many young US voters think.  For the record, I agree with them.  I'll quote Bill Clinton.  He didn't call Bibi a genocidal monster.  He did say Netanyahu killed peace.  He is correct.

On Ukraine, I called out your ridiculous statement about Ukrainian children.  I view Murderous Vlad as an even worse genocidal monster.  The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed thanks to Vlad's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is at least in the hundreds of thousands.  Not to mention millions of refugees.  The death count, all thanks to Murderous Vlad, is some massive factor larger than the number of dead Israelis and Palestinians - in this war, or even in all wars.  You obviously don't agree, and want to gaslight about how swell Murderous Vlad is to Ukrainian children.

I'll make two other relevant points as a compare and contrast:

Nearly 90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions to Russia - poll

I've mentioned repeatedly that about 90 % of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan.  It didn't mean it worked.  And part of the reason it didn't work is we never had 90 % of the Afghans behind the plan.  By the time we left I'm pretty sure the majority of Afghans just wanted the US to get the fuck out.  Russia can certainly relate to that.

Over 90 % of Ukrainians want Murderous Vlad to get the fuck out.  That's a whole lot of unity.  It doesn't mean it will work.  But the polls of Ukrainians are even more polarized and anti-Russia today then when Vlad attacked almost two years ago.  And in this case massive majorities of Ukrainians want US and EU and NATO partnership.

This is the part you and I would be more likely to find common ground on:

Poll shows 41% of Ukrainians agree with Putin’s ‘one nation’ claim, but question was tweaked

That finding should not come as a surprise.  Since I think that is somewhere in the ballpark of the percentage of Ukrainians who speak Russian as their primary language.  If we wanted to put John Mearsheimer in a room, who I have quoted extensively in arguing that the US fucked up for many years by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, you and I would probably agree with most of his points.   Like Kissinger, who is pals with Vlad, he thinks Ukraine should have been a neutral bridge between Russia and the West.  Not a place to blow the shit out of.

That said, Murderous Vlad gets 100 % of the credit for being the guy who decided to actually blow the shit out of it.  Just like Bibi gets the credit, and shame, for the innocent women and kids his bombs are killing.

Putin and Netanyahu are both trying the same thing.  And history suggests it will not work. 

Palestinians want a state, and self determination.  Ukrainians want a state, and self determination.  It is very hard to stop a people who want those things, as Israel and Russia should know.  Both Netanyahu and Putin can claim some wins - like territory, in the form of oblasts or settlements.  But history suggests that while they may win some battles, they will lose the war.  Probably not in the next year.  Or even the next decade. 

But name some countries, other than the US or India or [someplace in Africa] that ultimately failed when they fought for independence? 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vinapu]

11 hours ago, Kostik said:

Thank you so much for the humor vinapu and that we didn’t cross the line! Or did we overcome it?

It's not the humor, just realization that we are discussing problem which for now doesn't have satisfying solution chiefly because neither side is interested in getting one. Both want all or nothing. Until two states will be created  and West Bank cleared from settlers discussing it is just intellectual exercise. 

If say,  Jordan would attack Israel in manner Hamas did, world would be more willing to accept any response to it from Israel saying they asked for it.

What we have now is not war between states, it's attempt to quash prison or concentration camp riot.

[vinapu]

11 hours ago, Kostik said:

 I'm from a different cultural environment.

from different what?

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, Kostik said:

Explain this to the Americans who are placing nuclear weapons around the world and posing a threat to everyone

Placing weapons is not a threat , it calms the waters and hot heads.

Do you really think Russia would invade Ukraine if she had post-Soviet nuclear stockpiles ?

I guarantee you that this lesson won't be lost on anybody. When Scotland regains her independence from Britain in 2117 and USA will split into 17 different states in 2145 no newly created country will resign from keeping whatever hardware will be on their territory. Why ? because not of 3 post Russian states created in 2057 did neither.

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, Kostik said:

 

But I like the truly democratic government in Nicaragua. 

be fair. You forgot Saudi Arabia and North Korea for a balance .

and thanks for good laugh 

[stevenkesslar]

2 minutes ago, vinapu said:

Do you really think Russia would invade Ukraine if she had post-Soviet nuclear stockpiles ?

John Mearsheimer, the Great Powers academic I quote a lot, said that at the time.  There was certainly a logic to thinking that all the nukes in all the former Soviet republics should be put someplace safer.  Mearsheimer says at the time that was being done, he was a voice in the wilderness.  He argued that in the long run those nukes might help Ukraine keep its independence. 

You are making an excellent point.

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, Kostik said:

! No matter who you elect, nothing will change.

You got that right, first I'd change in USA is look of their paper money, it's so outdated , old fashioned and distanced from modernity that even Maldives and yes , Nicaragua  have much modern currency than issuer if supposedly strongest one.

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

Next time they will have choice between a war-mongering Biden presidency for another four years or giving the overtly neo-fascist Trump a second chance to steer the country toward becoming an autocratic enclave for the billionaire class and ultra nationalist minorities.

Biden’s response to the Russian attack on Ukraine was not one that sought an early ceasefire and diplomatic compromise. Rather it opted for weaponry and assistance to sustain a prolonged war in Ukraine as a demonstration of US-led NATO resurgence, seemingly not so much motivated by the defense of Ukraine but by an overwhelming interest in humiliating Putin and defeating Russia.

Biden added a geopolitical level of encounter to the devastating war on the ground, with the hope that inflicting defeat on Russia would lead China to give up any hope of incorporating Taiwan. This agenda aims above all to extend U.S. unipolar primacy as a permanent feature of the post-Cold War world, effectively a Monroe Doctrine for the world.

Such a provocative course of action was undertaken in the face of risking nuclear escalation and the likelihood of another ‘forever war,’ undoubtedly bringing the people of Ukraine prolonged suffering and accompanying devastation. In the background of such behavior is an apparent cavalier attitude toward the onset of a new cold war, which is already underway in the form of a costly, risky arms race, uncooperative problem-solving in response to an array of global challenges

Is this what you think or you are quoting Margarita Simonian ?

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, forky123 said:

The USA has already placed in prison EVERYONE who is against it? Not only do I doubt it, I know for an absolute certainty that it is not true.

don't argue with somebody who thinks leap year is when February has 32 days

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

 

• Putin has been elected by wish of majority,

now we know why Stalin never replaced Kalinin as President of Supreme Soviet. Majority did not wish.

You are correct though about majority voting for Putin. Did they had a choice  kind of Americans do ? 

[vinapu]

7 hours ago, Kostik said:

Remember, the Russian language is great at idymatic expressions.

I thought you are English, no ?

[vinapu]

5 hours ago, Kostik said:

Stalin died a long time ago.

is he still dead?

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, forky123 said:

Whatever it is, they keep smoking it. 

Guilty as charged.

But at least I don't inhale.   Or swallow.  😉

That said, he is the only US President in my lifetime who almost brokered a true peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.  So smoking does have its virtues.

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, Moses said:

The significant difference btw Stalin's USSR and US is just fact, what Stalin's repressions killed citizens of USSR, while US govt prefers to kill citizens of other countries.

US is the only country in world which made nuclear bombing of civilians by wiping 2 cities in Japan.

True but is this any good ? Killing your own people?

Bombing was cruel but it helped to finish the war which not USA started. If I was Russian I'd be complaining that Truman was too fast, had he wait bit longer Russia possibly would take over nor only Kuril Islands but also whole Hokkaido and would have Winter Olympics in 1972 instead of waiting for Sochi.

[vinapu]

14 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

That said, he is the only US President in my lifetime who almost brokered a true peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.

or created an impression he did. In that conflict USA was almost always one sided , exception being Suez Crisis only.

Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's right but if I have dispute with you and  your friend will offer his service as mediator, chances are solution he offers may not be palatable for me

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, Moses said:

Bolivia cut diplomatic ties with Israel over its bombardment and siege of Gaza and mounting civilian casualties...

Yes, because, as we all know, if Paraguay were to send missiles into civilian areas of Bolivia, Bolivia would just sit there and invite Paraguay to send some more. But Bolivia should know something about starting a conflict without knowing how it would end. The conflict they started with Chile resulted in that country now being land-locked. 

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

...But name some countries, other than the US or India or [someplace in Africa] that ultimately failed when they fought for independence? 😉

There's a tautology for you. Obviously, if the movement failed, it didn't result in a country, so it cannot be named. One cannot name the Basque Republic, Tamil Republic, nor the Catalan Republic because those peoples' fights for independence failed. Your question was the equivalent to asking "Name me someone who failed but succeeded." Just silliness, really. Of course, there are quite a few countries which de facto govern themselves, but are not recognized either universally (i.e. Kosovo), or even barely at all (i.e. Transnistria).