Belize King
I got concepts of a plan.
I think Iraq is 60/30/10. The 60% is the religious sect that aligns with Iran. The 30% is Sunni then 10% are the Kurds.
CENTCOM: 3 US service members were killed and 25 injured in unmanned air attack in northeast Jordan near the Syrian border by Iranian groups
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Eisenhower wouldve cleared them out by now
Folks take for granted that warfare before WW2 and up to that point was done with the goal of annihilation and the complete submission of the enemy. It was only after WW2 and people suffering the worst of humanity and pain, that they decide to implement things like "War crimes" or "Rules of war". Before that there were no rules. There were no ideas of "collateral damage", and in fact terrorizing civilian populations was another tool of war to force capitulation of the enemy through ultimate pain and suffering.
Funny enough, the only countries actively trying to bring us back to that paradigm globally are some of the authoritarian countries around the wolrd, including countries like Israel which by no coincidence, also was backsliding into authoritarianism before this whole war popped off and they were in the process of possibly getting Netanyahu the fukk out of there. The US is a cause of a lot of suffering around the world for some countries but there are also some countries that got enjoy decades of stability and growth and protection of US military/economic power. It helped keep other big players at bay out of fear and respect. If the US is removed as the lead power from the world stage, that isn't going to be some peace on earth. Another power will simply fill in the vacuum. Its very much zero-sum. The biggest irony is the US biggest adversary right now, China, only got to its position because of US investments and cooperation. If it was not for the US and the west, China would still be a country of dirt poor farmers and no middle class like they have now. China is only able to challenge the US because of we empowered them and built their welath up enough to allow them to do so. A great irony of the situation.
Also, some people have allowed political labels to fully control their moral and political beliefs. There is more effort by them to conform to political labels instead of just viewing each individual situation on its own merits and going from there. A lot of the voices who sought to reign in US military policy often argued that the US should not be invading or starting conflicts and that the military should only be used in a defensive capacity. However, when the military is used in a defensive capacity such as responding to Houthi attacks on global trade ships, they still cry "warmongering" even though this response is completely defensive. I don't even think the attacks by the US even killed people in that case. They just attacked their logictic capability but bleeding hearts were still crying about it.
IMO, despite identifying as a liberal, I still believe the military has a role to respond to attacks at least in defense. If it was up to the above individuals, the military would do nothing and just sit by and let every and any attack be carried out against them without resistance. That seems ridiculous to me. So if the US decides to eradict and wipe out people who attack US troops, I see nothing wrong with it personally.
Funny enough, the only countries actively trying to bring us back to that paradigm globally are some of the authoritarian countries around the wolrd, including countries like Israel which by no coincidence, also was backsliding into authoritarianism before this whole war popped off and they were in the process of possibly getting Netanyahu the fukk out of there. The US is a cause of a lot of suffering around the world for some countries but there are also some countries that got enjoy decades of stability and growth and protection of US military/economic power. It helped keep other big players at bay out of fear and respect. If the US is removed as the lead power from the world stage, that isn't going to be some peace on earth. Another power will simply fill in the vacuum. Its very much zero-sum. The biggest irony is the US biggest adversary right now, China, only got to its position because of US investments and cooperation. If it was not for the US and the west, China would still be a country of dirt poor farmers and no middle class like they have now. China is only able to challenge the US because of we empowered them and built their welath up enough to allow them to do so. A great irony of the situation.
Also, some people have allowed political labels to fully control their moral and political beliefs. There is more effort by them to conform to political labels instead of just viewing each individual situation on its own merits and going from there. A lot of the voices who sought to reign in US military policy often argued that the US should not be invading or starting conflicts and that the military should only be used in a defensive capacity. However, when the military is used in a defensive capacity such as responding to Houthi attacks on global trade ships, they still cry "warmongering" even though this response is completely defensive. I don't even think the attacks by the US even killed people in that case. They just attacked their logictic capability but bleeding hearts were still crying about it.
IMO, despite identifying as a liberal, I still believe the military has a role to respond to attacks at least in defense. If it was up to the above individuals, the military would do nothing and just sit by and let every and any attack be carried out against them without resistance. That seems ridiculous to me. So if the US decides to eradict and wipe out people who attack US troops, I see nothing wrong with it personally.
Like i mentioned above. Eisenhower wouldve decimated them by now. He didnt give a fukk about optics.
Are you sure those who attacked are ready for the consequences of a US response?
You are pro Israeli shill and refuse to accept that Israel’s actions have placed US service people in danger all around the world.
I really think progressives means they also have to be p*ssy and I don’t accept that.Folks take for granted that warfare before WW2 and up to that point was done with the goal of annihilation and the complete submission of the enemy. It was only after WW2 and people suffering the worst of humanity and pain, that they decide to implement things like "War crimes" or "Rules of war". Before that there were no rules. There were no ideas of "collateral damage", and in fact terrorizing civilian populations was another tool of war to force capitulation of the enemy through ultimate pain and suffering.
Funny enough, the only countries actively trying to bring us back to that paradigm globally are some of the authoritarian countries around the wolrd, including countries like Israel which by no coincidence, also was backsliding into authoritarianism before this whole war popped off and they were in the process of possibly getting Netanyahu the fukk out of there. The US is a cause of a lot of suffering around the world for some countries but there are also some countries that got enjoy decades of stability and growth and protection of US military/economic power. It helped keep other big players at bay out of fear and respect. If the US is removed as the lead power from the world stage, that isn't going to be some peace on earth. Another power will simply fill in the vacuum. Its very much zero-sum. The biggest irony is the US biggest adversary right now, China, only got to its position because of US investments and cooperation. If it was not for the US and the west, China would still be a country of dirt poor farmers and no middle class like they have now. China is only able to challenge the US because of we empowered them and built their welath up enough to allow them to do so. A great irony of the situation.
Also, some people have allowed political labels to fully control their moral and political beliefs. There is more effort by them to conform to political labels instead of just viewing each individual situation on its own merits and going from there. A lot of the voices who sought to reign in US military policy often argued that the US should not be invading or starting conflicts and that the military should only be used in a defensive capacity. However, when the military is used in a defensive capacity such as responding to Houthi attacks on global trade ships, they still cry "warmongering" even though this response is completely defensive. I don't even think the attacks by the US even killed people in that case. They just attacked their logictic capability but bleeding hearts were still crying about it.
IMO, despite identifying as a liberal, I still believe the military has a role to respond to attacks at least in defense. If it was up to the above individuals, the military would do nothing and just sit by and let every and any attack be carried out against them without resistance. That seems ridiculous to me. So if the US decides to eradict and wipe out people who attack US troops, I see nothing wrong with it personally.
People really think they’d be immune from answering to China or Russia and they got another thing coming.
Tell me specifically, what should have happened on October 8th in Israel?
BobbyWojak
Superstar
Nkrumah Was Right
Superstar
Im an atheist.
Wrong again.
But how does this work?
Islam isn’t even 2000 years old…judaism tho…
And thats even if we’re just ignoring how all the muslim countries keep expelling jews…
And the cacs you worshipped killed 6 million Jews and pushed the rest to Palestine
What's your point, Jagdeep?
Nkrumah Was Right
Superstar
Decolonization and a one state solution for all those who live in historic Palestine; return for millions of Palestinian refugees expelled in 1948 and 1967.
But since you like forever wars, you prefer Zionism and mass expulsion. And that's why Biden is going to lose in November.
