after ww2 the west was a beggar with its hands waiting for help out willing to do anything the USA would have told it.

and the USA told them: you know what? we give you a lot of money, we lend you more at favourable rates, we defend you against aggression with our militaries, go on and prosper.

They even did it to their former tyrant oppressor! you realize the magnitude of that? perhaps not.

Now the grandchildren of those people whose entire livelihood depended on american blood, treasure, and exceptional benevolence, that are living better than animals only thanks to americans, those spoiled brats act against american interests, insult america every chance they have, call america the very one thing america is not (genocidal monsters, unlike every other strong nation in history) , and ally with enemies of america.

What's the lesson? that you crush people at the first sign of disloyalty

Dude, you've lost the plot completely. There were massive waves of anti-Iraq War protests, world opinion of the US dropped like never in my lifetime.


https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/w...oll-finds.html

This "fact" is a conclusion you're assuming based on thin air. Just yesterday you yourself said the ADL's evidence for a substantial wave of antisemitism is flimsy.

i can imagine that it's called china, they killed 1M uigurs and not a blip in colleges ... but the 25k civilians in gaza killed because hamas uses them as human shield? can't hear the end of it.

A population of approx 8-10m starts doing some act of terrors (a lot less than what hamas did to be clear), the chinese incarcerate most men of military age, kill a lot of them, forcibly abort pregnant women, cancel the culture of that group from schools, sends han men to the widows to live "as husband" (-> women slavery and marital rape on a large scale).

Now the chinese are *exceptionally less powerful than the USA was and is* and they could pull this off without many costs.

And you should realize it because the far far far less powerful USSR, destroyed by a war that basically killed off a generation, raped and pillaged with abandon in Poland and elsewhere in the aftermath of the war.

You don't realize, truly, what the USA could have done in say 1948 anywhere on the planet with no opposition

China didnt kill 1m Uyighurs. thats not even the Western accusation. get your propaganda straight. its something about putting them in reeducation camps.

i should have imagined that after being pro hamas and pro putin, you must be pro china uigur genocide as well

Im just telling you, thats not the accusation.

i don't care what you read the accusation is in whatever source you think i read.

The chinese interned more than 1.5m people for 10+ years (not the same people at all times obviously), almost all of them under50. 5-10% of them died each year while in the camps.

That approx 1m killed.

And the horrific moral monsters of your side who consider themselves moral because they block roads or illegally occupy private land to protest in favour of hamas, didn't protest this infinitely worse violation of human rights to a scale that according to jalfrezi doesn't occur anymore these days.

And mind even if you believe "only" 100k were killed that's still worse than gaza. Even if you believe many of the accusations aren't precise, even 1 /10 of them being trues is infinitely worse than gaza. Forced abortions, mass sterilization, 15k mosquees destroyes, basically all uigur graveyards deleted from the face of earth, uigur language and history canceled from schools, and so on.

Textbook actual genocide.

But anyway the actual genocide of uigurs by the chinese, was brought up just to tell jalfrezi that if the chinese can do this today, america in 1948 could have done infinitely worse, and not doing it is proof of immense restraint of a scale never seen before historically.

The reward? having actual enemies of america prosper in the same countries they saved and allowed to exist.

when India in say 2060, or 2080, will be exceptionally powerful more than anyone else (a plausible prediction given demographic and economic trends), they won't do the same mistake i think.

No it's not called China because there has been pretty widespread condemnation of the treatment of Uighurs - it's called you salivating over killing large numbers of your real or imaginary opponents.

You really feel there could have been any appetite in the US for invading countries in the aftermath of WW2 when the destruction it had witnessed was a warning against invasions?

the sources I am reading are all the Western reports. none of them quote 1m killed.

Im not arguing about the other stuff or if its a "genocide" or not.

and what actually happened? was china forced to stop it? did it pay a significant price? no.

As for the "appetite": those countries were already invaded.

The USA built interim governments , oversaw constitutions being drafted and whatnot in germany and japan right? why didn't they set up a significant tribute to pay with those people taxes for the following 50 or 100 years? why didn't they just claim nazi assets as reimbursment for american lives? they could have like sequestered the land and capital of the richest german and japanese allies of the regimes.

It's incredible they did nothing of the above rather they paid further money to help the very same people who caused the war. They didn't denazify nor de-imperialize japan. Not even the top 1-2k people in either country was executed which would have been the bare minimum. The generals who led their armies to commit atrocities weren't even jailed for the most part. The enterpreneurs which supplied weapons to those regimes weren't as well.

And so on and on

The issue in all this is that something has to give FIRST. But no country (and I mean none), risks their own civilians in that process.

Hamas is entirely untrustworthy as it relates to doing things like ceding land strategically close to large Jewish civilian populations. I have no interest in debating this with Vic, but for anyone else, these are the facts (and we can paste 50+ instances of Hamas breaking their word to back that). Hamas is not and never will be a reliable counter-party for peace. When your slogan is "from this side to that side", how is that even a starter? Ponder that for a second, how is that someone you want to hash this out with? Start with a new slogan maybe? One whose basis isn't totally delegitimizing your country and people. Imagine if Israel's social media slogan was "fence them all into a ghetto", and then the idea was figuring this out. That's insane.

With a moderate stable Palestinian leadership, Israel (and their allies) would be looking at ways to usher in a far better future (and present) for Palestinians. Because this is MUCH EASIER than constantly fighting them. Jews don't enjoy war, despite what some in here might have you believe. Nobody wants to send their 18 year olds into hell like that, it SUCKS. It would be way easier to do it the other way if the other way was possible.

And yes, the eventual goal is Palestinian statehood. That means a lot of things. At first it means almost nothing in fact. Some lines. And then you can progressively add all kinds of things to that because it would be apparent that peace is the desired outcome, and not "the River to the Sea". The "River to the Sea" is not a partner for peace, that's your enemy. And as long as that's the goal, this will never work.

Myrna said the other day that the college kids MUST be right, because past college kids have been right. Well I'll tell you what, aligning yourselves with people capable of an Oct 7th is a very bad start. Aligning yourselves with rapists, people who kidnap babies, and people who cut hands off, is a bad start. Aligning yourselves with any group that wants "The River to the Sea" when there is an established country as voted on by the UN, and an American ally, is a bad start. You're quite certain you're on the side of good. But in this side, I just don't think there is any good. Only a very old hate. You just picked one side.

And btw the FIRST thing Israel can do, is vote in a new government. It's coming. We all need out from under Bibi. History needs him gone.

and pre-WW1

I'm a fan of coalition building but like every option it contains it's own huge dangers.

Israel has cut off a lot more hands and heads of innocent people (collateral if you must) but with 1000lb bombs. For some reason that's better.

But all Israel has to do to immediately become a good faith negotiator seeking peace is get rid of Bibi (who is going away because of corruption and not his prosecution of the war)? Is it just Netanyahu or all of Likud?

If Sinwar leaves or is killed is that all Hamas needs for a fresh start?

Man, if that's the case it's so much worse that Mossad didn't just assassinate him.

Benny Gantz is the leading replacement for Bibi and he will be just as bad if not worse in terms of this war.

the other option is Yoav Gallant who is the defense minister.

Gantz is running the war too in the war cabinet with Gallant and Bib.

I agree. Since that is the Likud position, and Israel is heavily right, there is no partner for peace. There wasn't when Labor was in power either because Rabin also opposed a Palestinian state.

It's comical you keep using this "river to the sea" attack while missing the irony. But that's what we expect from the hasbara Colonel.

The world order after WW2 was better than before and USA deserves some credit for that, but also you're right. After WW2, USA fought to a draw in Korea and lost in Vietnam. After Vietnam, USA conducted it's operations in the Americas through proxies. Broad conflicts, especially in Europe, always had the specter of nuclear annihilation to consider. In fact, the most clear and undisputable change pre and post WW2 is that threat.

Micro, Hamas declared war on Israel. There were no 1000 lbs bombs before that declaration of war. This MATTERS.

Hiroshima and Dresden didn't just "happen". They happened in response to a great terror. With time we can see the error in the ways of many of these horrific campaigns, and I would include Gaza in that.

As my post clearly mentioned, what we're choosing from here is two sides of horror in a very old war. I simply cautioned Myrna to be very careful believing his side was as righteous as something as the Civl Rights movement. This is a delusion, in my estimation.

But you think the students are largely right. You think Israel has caused too much damage and killed too many people in Gaza.

If all we were seeing around us was "too many have died" protests Micro, the world would be holding these daily for dozens of countries. We'd have camped in front of schools for 3 years for Syria.

These protests are happening because people view Israelis as white colonizers who have "stolen land" and locked innocent brown Gazans into "open air prisons". That's what these protests are rooted in. And more specifically still, it's that Jews did it. If this was say Iran and Arabs were doing this to Arabs, we'd have no protests. Not one.

So your simplification here is like every simplification you are prone to making in this thread, and why generally you're not a great counter-party to have this discussion with (granted you're unblocked and a good person I think). But you still basically use the Victor method of debate, only in a far more civil way. But we still don't get anywhere.

Israel killed too many people in the early phases of the war. They decided that a massive response would do 2 things: get some hostages back faster (they were right), and provide a massive deterrent effect (they were wrong). I think the war cabinet now sees 10 things they'd do differently if they could. Or at least you'd hope anyone sane leader not named Bibi, would.

Now all that said, Rafah IS coming. And they are going to move those civilians out first to do it. Then they have murderers to go get, weapons to seize, tunnels to destroy, etc. Let's see how much they learned from before. We hope a lot.

bro wut

I am not denying there were anti-Iraq protests. I am saying that anti-American sentiment rose after the invasion started, not after the terrorist attack which led to the invasion. If antisemitism rises after the terrorist attack and before the invasion then that is very telling.



I never said this.

like rafki, your whole post is riddled with inaccuracies but that one is the most egregious considering they literally just admitted in mainstream media that they could have brought the hostages back within the first week. ofc Palestinian sources have been saying this for 6 months.





https://www.zman.co.il/469404/

https://nypost.com/2024/04/26/us-new...ibextid=xfxF2i

Ny post so micro will call it fake news

Paid protestors? Shocking