2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ukraine perhaps, but israel, nah! They have the best weapons the US can give them, they have a very large army indoctrinated to hate Palestinans, they have air power, sea power, land power. They defeated several large armies in the past.

Hamas has rifles, RPGs and a few rockets that mostly get destroyed in the air- they haven't even been using IEDs.

 

Anyone thinks Hamas threatens the existence of israel is .................!

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Hamas itself is not an existential threat to Israel as it is. Given 7/10, though, leaving it to his own devices until he gets there would have been a mistake. It is possible to envisage a lame reaction construed as weakness, leading to more Hamas attacks (and possibly other regional players getting the same idea). Given opportunity and time their capabilities would have improved.

 

Regarding your ongoing attempts to minimize Hamas actions, threat - you routinely drop out anti-tank missiles, which are a thing, and somehow claim that not IED's were used (which is patently untrue). Also drones, and more like thousands of rockets rather than 'a few'. Even by your 'standards' these 'inaccuracies' are ridiculous.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have you actually lived there to know that, or just dreaming?

I lived in Saudi and many hated the religious element, but no rebellion would succeed, as most are content.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

The comment was about Iran, though. Unless you think it's all the same, or that rules applied to foreigners and locals aren't different, doubt not sure what point you were trying to make. Also, I do no think you have lived in the Gaza Strip, West Bank or Israel - doesn't seem to stop you from posting a whole lot of strong comments regarding these.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Western media IMO publish what makes money, not actual reality, unless it suits them to do so. When it comes to such as Iran I doubt they actually know what a majority of the population want.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Coming from someone who uses a single, government-controlled media venue as his main source of information on related things, that's kinda rich. Of course, other than toss about allegations or cast generalized doubts, you provide little by way of support for whatever it is you're trying to claim.

20 hours ago, roquefort said:

Settled.....as in how the issue with the Taliban was settled? Handing the country back to them after 20 years, trillions of $ and thousands of US lives lost. Ditto Iraq. The US cannot 'win' these regional wars, they just create another generation of terrorists that grow up hating the US.

Do you consider the Viet Nam Conflict a regional war?  The U.S. along with South Korean forces failed to stop Ho Chi Minh's communist forces from overrunning the south.  When was the last Vietnamese terrorist attack on the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

Today, American companies are very active in the country and Viet Nam has been cooperating with the U.S. in opposing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

 

You win some, you lose some.

On 12/4/2023 at 2:45 PM, ezzra said:

Not all wars fulfil their purpose but if you look back, wars were fought through out history, some with good results, others not so much but in some situation wars are a must and the way to go...

Most wars in recent memory planted the seeds for the next war. This is certainly true in the Middle East.

On 12/4/2023 at 3:04 PM, Jingthing said:

Neither side wants a full war. Proxy actions are par for the course. Yes it could happen accidentally but so could anything. Perhaps the countries that most want a US - Iran war where Iran is crushed would be Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Not sure about Saudi Arabia. They have already seen the mess in Iraq.

On 12/4/2023 at 3:09 PM, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Complete nonsense. While the US shouldn't provoke a war with Iran, it's actually Iran that's been testing the waters with more provocations from Iran-backed militias, exactly because Iran fears an all-out war with the US. I don't think the US should directly attack Iran at this point, but more actions need to be taken against those militia and the Houthis in particular need to go. Either way comparing US military might to Iran's is ridiculous because they are orders of magnitude apart.  It's kind of like comparing Hamas and their RPGs and inaccurate rockets to Israel's coordinated land, air, and sea forces - it's not a question of if they lose, it's just a question of how long it takes.

 

Hopefully it won't come to that (a war with Iran), but if it does the US needs to promptly and decidely crush the Islamists and install a new government. The will of the people is already there - it's just a matter of helping them make it happen.

You haven't been following Yemen. US is currently containing the situation by naval forces. There has been a war going on in Yemen for years, finally winding down. The US stopped supporting this war several years ago.

 

Your idea of installing a govenment in Iran was already tried in Iraq.

On 12/4/2023 at 3:17 PM, Jingthing said:

Sometimes war is necessary.

Right now, both Ukraine and Israel are fighting existential wars.

Concerning IZ, it's existential in a paranoid mind.

10 minutes ago, placnx said:

Concerning IZ, it's existential in a paranoid mind.

Did you miss October 7?

Have you looked at a map of tiny Israel relative to total Middle East?

Not paranoid. Realistic. Much of the world and much of their neighborhood really really wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's not paranoia when they really want to kill you. If you don't acknowledge that, we have no basis for conversation. That's why the IDF (more like the Israeli government and usually excellent intelligence service) needs to function properly unlike the historic mistakes of October 7. 

On 12/4/2023 at 4:34 PM, Hawaiian said:

If the mullahs were overthrown there is a good possibility of democratic reforms coming back, maybe not overnight like you say, but quicker than many think possible.  Iran has a sizable population of well educated people that are not religious fanatics, especially the younger generation.

Lately there have been frequent  anti-government demonstrations demanding reforms and women's rights.  The pro-government demonstrations you see are government sponsored and instigated.

If really fair and free elections were held tomorrow, a pro-democracy government would most likely be voted in.

 

 

Looking back to the Shah's reign, middle class people were not happy with SAVAK, the secret police, and many thought that Ayatollah Khomeini would be better. Iran had a parliament for a long time, but now the ultimate power resides with the religious elite. I agree that the country can culturally support a democracy, but imposition by external force is problematic. There too much chance for opportunists to come in on the back of occupation.

There is zero chance of a war with Iran under current conditions.

 

I don't know why this topic exists.

 

There is a much bigger chance of a war with Venezuela.

On 12/4/2023 at 12:41 PM, novacova said:

The cowardly inaction of the US president is paving the way for a regional conflict by hoping Iran will be nice has only emboldened them, unintentionally or by deliberate intent to incite a war. Either way it’s stupid. The issue with the Houthis should have been settled by now as well as the attacks on the US bases in Iraq and Syria. Instead the US is flinching and hesitating, deadly mistakes.

 

The right wing solution to stop wars - start them.

9 hours ago, placnx said:

Looking back to the Shah's reign, middle class people were not happy with SAVAK, the secret police, and many thought that Ayatollah Khomeini would be better. Iran had a parliament for a long time, but now the ultimate power resides with the religious elite. I agree that the country can culturally support a democracy, but imposition by external force is problematic. There too much chance for opportunists to come in on the back of occupation.

Although there is some room for argument, most Iranians were considered to be middle class before the Revolution. Prices were fairly stable. Today the majority of the population are poor and inflation is a serious problem for them.

One reason the U.S. supported the Shah and his repressive policies was the fear of communism.  Similar to the backing of Marcos until the Filipinos had enough of his brutal tactics.

The toppling of the mullahs caused by foreign intervention and/or military action wouldn't necessarily be followed by a ground invasion and occupying forces.  A spontaneous peoples rebellion could happen with anti-government forces taking over and eventually calling for free and open elections.  I would venture to say a more secular oriented government would be the result.

Wishful thinking?  Maybe, maybe not.

On 12/5/2023 at 10:28 AM, Hawaiian said:

Do you consider the Viet Nam Conflict a regional war?  The U.S. along with South Korean forces failed to stop Ho Chi Minh's communist forces from overrunning the south.  When was the last Vietnamese terrorist attack on the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

Today, American companies are very active in the country and Viet Nam has been cooperating with the U.S. in opposing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

 

You win some, you lose some.

Taliban or Hamas have not attacked the US. Al Qaeda did.

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Did you miss October 7?

Have you looked at a map of tiny Israel relative to total Middle East?

Not paranoid. Realistic. Much of the world and much of their neighborhood really really wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's not paranoia when they really want to kill you. If you don't acknowledge that, we have no basis for conversation. That's why the IDF (more like the Israeli government and usually excellent intelligence service) needs to function properly unlike the historic mistakes of October 7. 

"Much of the world and much of their neighborhood really really wants to wipe Israel off the map." You deny paranoia, but your own statement is paranoid. It was tragic for the kibbutzes, but Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for long years, now it's strategy to bring Saudi Arabia into its circle, has reduced the Palestinians to desperation. 

 

As the campaign against Palestinians continues in both Gaza and the West Bank, it increasingly seems that the goal is to empty historic Palestine of its people to realize the slogan "A land without people for a people without a land", which was the mythical propaganda starting in the 19th Century.

1 minute ago, placnx said:

"Much of the world and much of their neighborhood really really wants to wipe Israel off the map." You deny paranoia, but your own statement is paranoid. It was tragic for the kibbutzes, but Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for long years, now it's strategy to bring Saudi Arabia into its circle, has reduced the Palestinians to desperation. 

 

As the campaign against Palestinians continues in both Gaza and the West Bank, it increasingly seems that the goal is to empty historic Palestine of its people to realize the slogan "A land without people for a people without a land", which was the mythical propaganda starting in the 19th Century.

 

That you say 'increasingly seems' doesn't amount to a whole lot.

Last I checked the Palestinians were still there.

12 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Although there is some room for argument, most Iranians were considered to be middle class before the Revolution. Prices were fairly stable. Today the majority of the population are poor and inflation is a serious problem for them.

One reason the U.S. supported the Shah and his repressive policies was the fear of communism.  Similar to the backing of Marcos until the Filipinos had enough of his brutal tactics.

The toppling of the mullahs caused by foreign intervention and/or military action wouldn't necessarily be followed by a ground invasion and occupying forces.  A spontaneous peoples rebellion could happen with anti-government forces taking over and eventually calling for free and open elections.  I would venture to say a more secular oriented government would be the result.

Wishful thinking?  Maybe, maybe not.

The original 1953 US involvement in reinstating the Shah and removing Mossadegh was incited by British intelligence because of the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company This link lacks detailed information on the incitement, since archives have only opened within the last 10 years. This is covered in the book "America's Great Game" by Hugh Wilford.

 

Actually, Obama gave speeches about democracy in Istanbul and Cairo, and later in 2009 the were major demonstrations in the streets. Recently, the deaths of women in custody for not covering their hair has also caused major reaction all over Iran. These expressions have all eventually been suppressed. 

 

Iran is a really big country. Who would want to occupy it and bankrupt themselves in the process? Toppling the regime by military force could well fail, but have Israel overwhelmed by missiles in the process.

 

If the US financial blockade were lifted, Iranians would undoubtedly prosper.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That you say 'increasingly seems' doesn't amount to a whole lot.

Last I checked the Palestinians were still there.

Perhaps you could spend more time finding out what's happening now. Biden is going to ban a few dozen settlers from the US. Pathetic.

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Perhaps you could spend more time finding out what's happening now. Biden is going to ban a few dozen settlers from the US. Pathetic.

 

I'm well aware of that, and more power to him.

What does it have to do with the topic?

On 12/5/2023 at 10:28 AM, Hawaiian said:

Do you consider the Viet Nam Conflict a regional war?  The U.S. along with South Korean forces failed to stop Ho Chi Minh's communist forces from overrunning the south.  When was the last Vietnamese terrorist attack on the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

Today, American companies are very active in the country and Viet Nam has been cooperating with the U.S. in opposing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

 

You win some, you lose some.

To imply that the Vietnam War was a "win" for the US in any sense of the word is downright ludicrous.

"You win some, you lose some" might have been a fair assessment of the US Military in the past, but since 1945 it has been all losses in every major conflict they've been involved in.

On 12/5/2023 at 4:28 PM, Hawaiian said:

Viet Nam has been cooperating with the U.S. in opposing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

LOL. It's not at all surprising that they "co operate" with America on that, as they have their own claims in the sea that China does not recognise.

On 12/5/2023 at 10:44 PM, placnx said:

Looking back to the Shah's reign, middle class people were not happy with SAVAK, the secret police, and many thought that Ayatollah Khomeini would be better. Iran had a parliament for a long time, but now the ultimate power resides with the religious elite. I agree that the country can culturally support a democracy, but imposition by external force is problematic. There too much chance for opportunists to come in on the back of occupation.

We know what happened to the opportunists that came into Iraq after the war. Didn't work out very well for the US, did it?

6 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

To imply that the Vietnam War was a "win" for the US in any sense of the word is downright ludicrous.

"You win some, you lose some" might have been a fair assessment of the US Military in the past, but since 1945 it has been all losses in every major conflict they've been involved in.

They have got it wrong so many times one wonders if it's on purpose or just incompetence.

Perhaps we should follow the money to know.

9 hours ago, placnx said:

Perhaps you could spend more time finding out what's happening now. Biden is going to ban a few dozen settlers from the US. Pathetic.

Doesn't apply to those with dual American/ israeli passports.

 

IMO it's stupid thinking that if they do some insignificant thing like that the sheeple will be satisfied. Doing something without actually doing anything- the Claytons solution.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. It's not at all surprising that they "co operate" with America on that, as they have their own claims in the sea that China does not recognise.

Viet Nam is not the only SE Asian country challenging China's claim to the South China Sea.  Just this past June, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan along with two guided missile cruisers visited the port of Da Nang.  I would think that is a tacit sign of cooperation or collaboration.  You tell me what you think that signals.  A formal signed agreement is not always necessary for cooperation. Besides, how do you know what both sides have talked about behind closed doors?

Have you been following stepped up Philippine push back against Chinese territorial claims, now that the U.S. had gotten involved?  Even Canada has voiced their support of the Philippines.

Lately Japan has been more vocal in their dispute over the Senkaku Islands.  China has attempted to sideline U.S. support which so far is not written in stone.

If this is not cooperation or collaboration, then what is it?

16 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

To imply that the Vietnam War was a "win" for the US in any sense of the word is downright ludicrous.

"You win some, you lose some" might have been a fair assessment of the US Military in the past, but since 1945 it has been all losses in every major conflict they've been involved in.

I am not implying that the U.S. won the war. Some of my close friends fought there and some even lost their lives.  I was very upset the U.S. blew it after all the valiant effort by our troops and the South Korean Army. 

Since 1945, the U.S. military has been hampered by rules written by the politicians in DC all against the advice of seasoned veterans.  In other words we were not "allowed" to win.  Viet Nam was no exception.  In Korea the politicians were afraid of the Chinese.  Same thing with Viet Nam.  The disaster we call Iraq would have a lot simpler if the U.S. was allowed to destroy Saddam's retreating forces.  Afghanistan is a classic lesson of plain stupidity.  We were fighting the Taliban which we helped to create years earlier.

What I was alluding to was while we lost to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh, we have a fairly good relationship with Hanoi today.

15 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I am not implying that the U.S. won the war. Some of my close friends fought there and some even lost their lives.  I was very upset the U.S. blew it after all the valiant effort by our troops and the South Korean Army. 

Since 1945, the U.S. military has been hampered by rules written by the politicians in DC all against the advice of seasoned veterans.  In other words we were not "allowed" to win.  Viet Nam was no exception.  In Korea the politicians were afraid of the Chinese.  Same thing with Viet Nam.  The disaster we call Iraq would have a lot simpler if the U.S. was allowed to destroy Saddam's retreating forces.  Afghanistan is a classic lesson of plain stupidity.  We were fighting the Taliban which we helped to create years earlier.

What I was alluding to was while we lost to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh, we have a fairly good relationship with Hanoi today.

"Biden team wary of retaliating against Houthi attacks at sea".  These are the headlines for an article I just read.  More classic stupidity.  What's the purpose of deploying 2 carrier groups to discourage the Hamas/Israeli conflict from spreading if they sit and watch.  While I don't want to see an escalation, it makes no sense not to eliminate the source of these missiles and drone launching sites.  Since 1945 the U.S. has been fighting with one hand tied their backs.  Disgusting.  It's no wonder why the U.S. gets no respect.

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm well aware of that, and more power to him.

What does it have to do with the topic?

West Bank is effectively a part of the current offensive. If all settlers in West Bank were banned, tax deductions for settlement support disallowed, those moves could have an impact.

2 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

I am not implying that the U.S. won the war. Some of my close friends fought there and some even lost their lives.  I was very upset the U.S. blew it after all the valiant effort by our troops and the South Korean Army. 

Since 1945, the U.S. military has been hampered by rules written by the politicians in DC all against the advice of seasoned veterans.  In other words we were not "allowed" to win.  Viet Nam was no exception.  In Korea the politicians were afraid of the Chinese.  Same thing with Viet Nam.  The disaster we call Iraq would have a lot simpler if the U.S. was allowed to destroy Saddam's retreating forces.  Afghanistan is a classic lesson of plain stupidity.  We were fighting the Taliban which we helped to create years earlier.

What I was alluding to was while we lost to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh, we have a fairly good relationship with Hanoi today.

When we end up alienating the whole world over our unquestioning support of Israel and arrogant vetoes, let's hope that we find a way to be forgiven.

2 hours ago, placnx said:

West Bank is effectively a part of the current offensive. If all settlers in West Bank were banned, tax deductions for settlement support disallowed, those moves could have an impact.

 

The West Bank is not, 'effectively' or otherwise, part of this offensive - that's just you and you habit of stating bogus things as fact.

Every long journey and all that. Some people are never satisfied, obviously.