War in Israel

[Mirage]

What is disingenuous is professional military officers supporting the myth that we found “nothing.” I fully recognize you didn’t state as much, but others here have.

I assume you're referring to me as the "others"? Nobody here has claimed that, least of all me. I said we didn't find nukes. And we didn't.

Because it's absolutely obvious and I don't understand why you keep harping on this as though everyone (or nearly everyone) in the US military doesn't understand this. And yes, quite often our hypocrisy leads to getting what we want in the short term but causes long-term damage and distrust.

But ya know what? Next time Lung stands up at some dumb security forum in Singapore reading words about the "rules-based international order," everyone will applaud although we've shown time and time again that we don't apply the same standard to Israel. NATO will send weapons to Ukraine talking about the inviolability of territorial integrity while the US supports Israel's conquest of the West and Gaza. You know why? At the core, it's because the US is a more generous occupier/patron than China or Russia.

Big boys and girls understand that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (Melian dialogue)--and we (the US) don't make the weak suffer very much. So Germany and Slovenia and Poland and the Philippines and S. Korea, etc...they want us to be in the driver's seat. Hell, we pummeled Vietnam for 15 years and they still would prefer us to China.

So yes, there's hypocrisy. But it's a bit less often and a bit less severe than the other guys, and much of the time we actually do some approximation of the "right" thing. If you needed the validation that the US is at times hypocritical, yep, you got it.

If you think everyone in the military understands this, you need only look at this forum to see that's not the case. I argued this at length in another thread, and brought it up again here because folks were talking about how we must enforce international law and such. Brett is even arguing that point with me still, seeming to think examples where we acted to uphold "international law" makes up for the many times we have acted exactly contrary to it.

However, I'm glad you and I can agree. Not sure why you agree with my points and are still being so abrasive about it, but I'll take it.

 

[IRfly]

I’m an abrasive asshole in general. At least when sober.

 

[Griz882]

If you think everyone in the military understands this, you need only look at this forum to see that's not the case. I argued this at length in another thread, and brought it up again here because folks were talking about how we must enforce international law and such. Brett is even arguing that point with me still, seeming to think examples where we acted to uphold "international law" makes up for the many times we have acted exactly contrary to it.

May I ask…want “international law” are you talking about? I ask because I think I’m missing part of the conversation.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Big boys and girls understand that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (Melian dialogue)--and we (the US) don't make the weak suffer very much. So Germany and Slovenia and Poland and the Philippines and S. Korea, etc...they want us to be in the driver's seat. Hell, we pummeled Vietnam for 15 years and they still would prefer us to China.

I noticed that the European countries you mentioned are much closer to Russia than the US, likewise the Pacific nations are near China - all are an ocean away from the US. What, if any, differences do you observe in other parts of the world such as Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, etc as they might be more dependent on Russian natural resources / food or Chinese manufacturing/ development funding?

 

[Brett327]

Not really. We were indeed looking for evidence of an active WMD program and we found a small amount to support that. But at the same time we found significant evidence that while the Saddam government wasn’t actively developing programs they also weren’t in compliance with the U.N. sanctions. Moreover, that wasn’t my full point (and I used nuclear weapons as a bit of snark). What is disingenuous is professional military officers supporting the myth that we found “nothing.” I fully recognize you didn’t state as much, but others here have.

Let's look at it in another way... with the benefit of hindsight, would what we found have been a sufficient basis to conduct the war in the way we did it. I hope your answer would be an unequivocal no.

Saying that we didn't find nothing is a weak argument. At the end of the day, what we found did not support the basis under which the US argued for an invasion. Full stop. The Bush admin decided on regime change for Iraq, then concocted the WMD scare based on flimsy evidence of an active WMD program... evidence that turned out to be wrong. That isn't controversial.

Whether elements of the Bush admin deliberately misled this country and the international community is up for debate. Either way, it produced one of, if not the greatest foreign policy disasters in this country's history resulting in 4500 American casualties, 32,000 Americans wounded, $728B wasted, and who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died. Yay team.

...but you're right, they didn't find nothing.

 

[Mirage]

May I ask…want “international law” are you talking about? I ask because I think I’m missing part of the conversation.

Your very question reinforces my point, which is that people should stop referencing our desire to uphold "international law" and acting like it is a significant driver in our decisionmaking, vice other motives that don't sound as good to use as justification (like that we are selfishly acting in our own best interests, as we should be).

In an effort to steer us back onto topic while answering your question, I'll point out that this was originally used in reference to the US needing to hold Israel accountable to international law. We don't, we haven't for decades, and I doubt we start now. Otherwise we wouldn't let Israel treat Arabs the way they have. For example, look at Article 1 of the UN charter on human rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Do you believe Palestinians and Jews in Israel have equal rights?

 

[zippy]

I hope there are Star of David patches in ready rooms available for our crews crews to wear beneath their US Flags.

They’re often worn on necklaces… you can get them on Etsy these days.

 

[Random8145]

Your very question reinforces my point, which is that people should stop referencing our desire to uphold "international law" and acting like it is a significant driver in our decisionmaking, vice other motives that don't sound as good to use as justification (like that we are selfishly acting in our own best interests, as we should be).

In an effort to steer us back onto topic while answering your question, I'll point out that this was originally used in reference to the US needing to hold Israel accountable to international law. We don't, we haven't for decades, and I doubt we start now. Otherwise we wouldn't let Israel treat Arabs the way they have. For example, look at Article 1 of the UN charter on human rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Do you believe Palestinians and Jews in Israel have equal rights?

How is Israel not accountable to international law and why do you believe Israel an apartheid state (I think you called it that in a prior post?). Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation where you can be openly Muslim (of any kind), Christian, gay, feminist, Jewish, whatever and not get killed or run the risk of such. Muslims also take part in the political process in Israel and have equal rights.

I'd say it is more the Palestinians that more need to be held accountable to international law. Israel has tried for years to make peace and they just won't accept it.

 

[Random8145]

Let's look at it in another way... with the benefit of hindsight, would what we found have been a sufficient basis to conduct the war in the way we did it. I hope your answer would be an unequivocal no.

Saying that we didn't find nothing is a weak argument. At the end of the day, what we found did not support the basis under which the US argued for an invasion. Full stop. The Bush admin decided on regime change for Iraq, then concocted the WMD scare based on flimsy evidence of an active WMD program... evidence that turned out to be wrong. That isn't controversial.

Whether elements of the Bush admin deliberately misled this country and the international community is up for debate. Either way, it produced one of, if not the greatest foreign policy disasters in this country's history resulting in 4500 American casualties, 32,000 Americans wounded, $728B wasted, and who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died. Yay team.

...but you're right, they didn't find nothing.

Wouldn't Vietnam be considered a worse disaster than Iraq?

 

[Griz882]

Wouldn't Vietnam be considered a worse disaster than Iraq?

Since time doesn’t stop and history doesn’t fit into clearly marked boxes (no matter how hard we try) recent events tell us that our conclusion of the Vietnam has turned out better than we once considered. Like Vietnam, or any war, the only lasting impact is the thousands of dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (and they rapidly slip from our memory). Technology and equipment shortfalls forced by the war (such as a currently diminished surface navy) will smooth out over time. Russia and China failed to make any meaningful progress against U.S. goals and the Middle East is what it has been since 1918…a hot mess that has defied and continues to defy our “best and brightest.” Here in the U.S. the most apparent change, for a while, is probably a reassertion of the traditional reticence of the American public towards direct foreign military intervention (although drone and air attacks seem quite acceptable). Still, Americans tend to blur their timelines swinging from one major event to the next forgetting that while the war in Vietnam ended in April, 1975, the U.S military was putting troops in Lebanon by July of 1976 and then over-and-over again somewhere in the world nearly every year since. But…to put it more directly…neither Vietnam nor Iraq were foreign policy failures anymore than WWII was a foreign policy failure for allowing the Soviet Union to exist for nearly 50 years.

 

[JTS11]

Since time doesn’t stop and history doesn’t fit into clearly marked boxes (no matter how hard we try) recent events tell us that our conclusion of the Vietnam has turned out better than we once considered. Like Vietnam, or any war, the only lasting impact is the thousands of dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (and they rapidly slip from our memory). Technology and equipment shortfalls forced by the war (such as a currently diminished surface navy) will smooth out over time. Russia and China failed to make any meaningful progress against U.S. goals and the Middle East is what it has been since 1918…a hot mess that has defied and continues to defy our “best and brightest.” Here in the U.S. the most apparent change, for a while, is probably a reassertion of the traditional reticence of the American public towards direct foreign military intervention (although drone and air attacks seem quite acceptable). Still, Americans tend to blur their timelines swinging from one major event to the next forgetting that while the war in Vietnam ended in April, 1975, the U.S military was putting troops in Lebanon by July of 1976 and then over-and-over again somewhere in the world nearly every year since. But…to put it more directly…neither Vietnam nor Iraq were foreign policy failures anymore than WWII was a foreign policy failure for allowing the Soviet Union to exist for nearly 50 years.

That's interesting. I've never thought about a couple of your points like that, but I tend to agree.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Since time doesn’t stop and history doesn’t fit into clearly marked boxes (no matter how hard we try) recent events tell us that our conclusion of the Vietnam has turned out better than we once considered. Like Vietnam, or any war, the only lasting impact is the thousands of dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis (and they rapidly slip from our memory). Technology and equipment shortfalls forced by the war (such as a currently diminished surface navy) will smooth out over time. Russia and China failed to make any meaningful progress against U.S. goals and the Middle East is what it has been since 1918…a hot mess that has defied and continues to defy our “best and brightest.” Here in the U.S. the most apparent change, for a while, is probably a reassertion of the traditional reticence of the American public towards direct foreign military intervention (although drone and air attacks seem quite acceptable). Still, Americans tend to blur their timelines swinging from one major event to the next forgetting that while the war in Vietnam ended in April, 1975, the U.S military was putting troops in Lebanon by July of 1976 and then over-and-over again somewhere in the world nearly every year since. But…to put it more directly…neither Vietnam nor Iraq were foreign policy failures anymore than WWII was a foreign policy failure for allowing the Soviet Union to exist for nearly 50 years.

Someone once said trying to win a war is like trying to win an earthquake. It shakes up the landscape, and it’s hard to predict who the winners and losers will be.

For my part, as long as Hamas and groups like them are writing genocide into what is essentially their constitution, war will continue to be the norm in that region.

 

[Mirage]

How is Israel not accountable to international law and why do you believe Israel an apartheid state (I think you called it that in a prior post?). Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation where you can be openly Muslim (of any kind), Christian, gay, feminist, Jewish, whatever and not get killed or run the risk of such. Muslims also take part in the political process in Israel and have equal rights.

I'd say it is more the Palestinians that more need to be held accountable to international law. Israel has tried for years to make peace and they just won't accept it.

It's Wikipedia, so read with caution, but it seems like a good summary to me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

Bottom line, it seems clear to me that Israel does not treat Palestinian and Jewish citizens the same under the law or in practice. Hell, if you live in Gaza, you can't even leave without very good reason and a specific permit, and then not even into Israel or the West Bank, but only Egypt. Do the Israelis have good reasons for these laws? Yes. Is it still a violation of intl law? Clearly. What should the Israelis do? I don't know.

 

[JTS11]

It's Wikipedia, so read with caution, but it seems like a good summary to me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

Bottom line, it seems clear to me that Israel does not treat Palestinian and Jewish citizens the same under the law or in practice. Hell, if you live in Gaza, you can't even leave without very good reason and a specific permit, and then not even into Israel or the West Bank, but only Egypt. Do the Israelis have good reasons for these laws? Yes. Is it still a violation of intl law? Clearly. What should the Israelis do? I don't know.

Well, after Hamas terrorists beheaded Israeli infants and toddlers, I'm assuming they haven't increased their bargaining power on the international stage, or within the nation of Israel.

Shit will get messy no doubt.

Again, the Gulf Arab states talk out of both sides of their mouths and give not 2 shits about the Palestinians. Arafat died a billionaire. Hamas shot callers reside in Qatar, and I'm sure are not living on breadcrumbs.

 

[taxi1]

Bottom line, it seems clear to me that Israel does not treat Palestinian and Jewish citizens the same under the law or in practice.

Israel is staring at a demographics calamity. Or opportunity, depending on where you sit. But definitely change.

Both Israeli Arabs and the ultra-orthodox Haredi are out-reproducing the more liberal, secular element. The Haredi are the ones enabling/driving the hard right shift. They don't serve in military and help with the nation's defense, but they do vote. They are at 13% of the population now.

For Gaza, 50% of the population is below the age of 18.