Israel?

[FunkyDexter]

global commendation

I think you mean condemnation, not commendation. They're pretty much the exact opposite in this scenario.

On the other side, if Israel puts a full stop on this, the internal outrage at government failures will grow louder. With a leader so keen on self preservation as Bibi is, I'm not sure that he sees peace as being in his best interest.

You're probably right but I hope you're wrong. Bibi is already facing a domestic backlash for the initial security failings and I get the impression that there's an increasing number of Israeli who are finding the response distasteful. I've seen quite a few interview including victims families where they express that it's starting to feel like revenge rather than a attempt to recover the hostages. I can see a path where he could spin an "I negotiated and recovered the hostages" line and save face that way.

[Shaggy Hiker]

He could save SOME face, but he's lost so much already, especially as reports that they ignored intelligence information about the pending attack are surfacing.

[FunkyDexter]

Well, the peace didn't last and we're back to exterminating Palestinians. I don't see an end to this.

[wes4dbt]

I am wondering how long the world will stay on the side lines while Israel bombs the hell out of Gaza. Using the Hamas attack to justify killing innocents can't go on forever. It has went on to long already.

[TysonLPrice]

I am wondering how long the world will stay on the side lines while Israel bombs the hell out of Gaza. Using the Hamas attack to justify killing innocents can't go on forever. It has went on to long already.

It looks like they are going into South Gaza soon.

[wes4dbt]

Yeah, Israel is telling people in the south to evacuate but I'm not sure where they are suppose to go?

[FunkyDexter]

The app they've released seems really ridiculous to me. It basically pops up messages telling Palestinians where they're not going to be safe. What it doesn't do is tell them where they will be safe.

At this point Israel's actions have met the definition for Ethnic Cleansing. Whether they'll meet the definition for Genocide remains to be seen but it sure seems headed in that direction.

Nothing should be used to distract or dismiss the actions of Hamas but this isn't helping.

[TysonLPrice]

The app they've released seems really ridiculous to me. It basically pops up messages telling Palestinians where they're not going to be safe. What it doesn't do is tell them where they will be safe.

At this point Israel's actions have met the definition for Ethnic Cleansing. Whether they'll meet the definition for Genocide remains to be seen but it sure seems headed in that direction.

Nothing should be used to distract or dismiss the actions of Hamas but this isn't helping.

And FOX news is deliberately pitting sides against each other. To me the way they weaponize their coverage to pit Americans against Americans is the equivalent to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

[techgnome]

And FOX news is deliberately pitting sides against each other. To me the way they weaponize their coverage to pit Americans against Americans is the equivalent to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

They've been doing that for years... even before TRump ... a couple decades at least... They've been doing it for so long, most people expect it.


-tg

[wes4dbt]

They've been doing that for years... even before TRump ... a couple decades at least... They've been doing it for so long, most people expect it.


-tg

I'd say, not only expect it, it's what they want. That's how Fox News has grown to the most watched news network.

[TysonLPrice]

I'd say, not only expect it, it's what they want. That's how Fox News has grown to the most watched news network.

Being dedicated to Trump helps...

[Shaggy Hiker]

The app they've released seems really ridiculous to me. It basically pops up messages telling Palestinians where they're not going to be safe. What it doesn't do is tell them where they will be safe.

I think everybody knows the answer to that one.

[FunkyDexter]

That's how Fox News has grown to the most watched news network.

While I'm no fan of Fox, I will defend them on this one. The Left Wing media plays exactly the same game of divisiveness, just from the other direction. (This is a whataboutism but, I think, a valid one). I'm afraid it's inevitable as soon as you make the outlets dependent on a profit motive. Conflict sells, it's why social media is algorithmically tuned to cater to it.

Of course, the alternative is state funding which comes with it's own raft of problems.

I think everybody knows the answer to that one.

Anywhere not Gaza...

There are increasing reports that the bombing hasn't been limited to areas notified in the app so it doesn't seem to even be succeeding in it's declared purpose, let alone the desired one. God, it's depressing.

[TysonLPrice]

While I'm no fan of Fox, I will defend them on this one. The Left Wing media plays exactly the same game of divisiveness, just from the other direction. (This is a whataboutism but, I think, a valid one). I'm afraid it's inevitable as soon as you make the outlets dependent on a profit motive. Conflict sells, it's why social media is algorithmically tuned to cater to it.

Of course, the alternative is state funding which comes with it's own raft of problems.

Anywhere not Gaza...

There are increasing reports that the bombing hasn't been limited to areas notified in the app so it doesn't seem to even be succeeding in it's declared purpose, let alone the desired one. God, it's depressing.

I don't think saying, the other guy does it too, is any kind of a defense for behavior that harms people. Plus FOX is orders of magnitude more vile than all the others put together in my opinion.

[techgnome]

I don't think saying, the other guy does it too, is any kind of a defense for behavior that harms people. Plus FOX is orders of magnitude more vile than all the others put together in my opinion.

I agree with FD that both sides do it ... and yes, it seems that Fox is more blatant and "vile" about it ... but it's also largely perspective. It seems vile because you don't agree with it ... but I'm sure it feels the same from the other side ... Fox is the nice warm cocoon and CNN is the vile, despicable, evil media empire ... I haven't watched any national or cable news network in years because of this. I barely watch local new either because there's a clear bias from their conglomerate overlords (not the network, but the company that own like most of the "local" stations in the country.)

That said, yeah whataboutism is no excuse but unfortunately happens way too much ...


-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's also a matter of speed and time format. I don't have a TV, so I rarely see television news, which means that when I do, I tend to look a bit more at how it is made rather than what it is saying. Over the course of an hour, you won't get many stories simply because it takes long enough to do an even half decent job that there isn't room for much. They tend to be only half decent, too, as television is an inherently visual medium. Most events have little or no meaningful video coverage, so you tend to see a few clips over and over as backdrop for the program. TV news might love a good hurricane because they can send somebody to stand out in the wind and rain so that the video is constant and dramatic. And then there's the infotainment stories. Lots of stories are thinly veiled advertisements for some kind of entertainment (guess what this actor just did).

Nonetheless, they could do better. There may not be two sides to an infotainment story (unless you count, "they did this" versus "who the heck cares"), but there are two sides to a hurricane, two sides to EVERY political story, and at least three sides to every economic story. We only get one, at most.

[wes4dbt]

While I'm no fan of Fox, I will defend them on this one.

Really no need to defend Fox, there wasn't any kind of attach on Fox in my post. All my post says is, Fox gives people what they want, which has made them successful.

I'd say it's more of a damning statement about the American mindset. Though I do think these 24/7 political news outlets contribute to the level of anger people have. I can see how you would be convinced the sky is falling if you watch them a lot.

[TysonLPrice]

It seems vile because you don't agree with it

I do agree that is a matter of perspective but...

No it seems vile because the end result is dead people. Covid for example. They divided the country on getting vaccinated, masking, and undermining the CDC and the result was unnecessary deaths. There is nothing to agree or disagree with concerning that.

"Fox News is killing us: Here are the receipts"

https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/1...-the-receipts/

[TysonLPrice]

Really no need to defend Fox, there wasn't any kind of attach on Fox in my post. All my post says is, Fox gives people what they want, which has made them successful.

I'd say it's more of a damning statement about the American mindset. Though I do think these 24/7 political news outlets contribute to the level of anger people have. I can see how you would be convinced the sky is falling if you watch them a lot.

That is a good point. They are the #1 news station because people enjoy it.

"Science Proves (Again) That Watching Fox News Makes You Dumber Than Not Watching Any News At All"

https://medium.com/transgender-soapb...l-6783ac48a348

[dilettante]

Who watches any of them anymore? Many people haven't had cable TV for a decade or more and the numbers grow every day.

[wes4dbt]

A simple search will answer that "fox news viewership history". Viewership seems to be growing.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have rabbit ears.

And I don't have a TV as an excuse

[Shaggy Hiker]

Dil, do you remember the Yellow Press and how it got us into war over Cuba? Those were the days.

What's old is new and what's new isn't that old.

[wes4dbt]

I sort of agree with the immediate cease fire veto but I think Israel needs to stop the air attacks. There are just to many civilians. They need to go in on the ground, boots on the ground, not blowing the hell out of everything with tanks.

I understand the difficulty that presents. How do you know who is Hamas and who is an innocent? Wars where you can't tell the combatants for the civilians are hard to win. Maybe impossible if the opposition in determined enough. I think the concept of completely eliminating Hama isn't possible but it makes the leadership sound good. Besides another Hamas would just grow.

I am curious why the US has always been so loyal to Israel. Israel/Jews has always seem like an east coast thing. It's never been a big thing where I live in Ca.

[dilettante]

I don't even know which media camp is backing which side. I have no use for the entire mess, and I don't think the US should be involved at all. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm not a fan of being taxed to support perpetual war.

I'm just tired and I feel abused.

[wes4dbt]

Yeah, for decades now the US has been playing the worlds babysitter. Not that we don't let our best interest guide a lot of our decisions.

But I'm not for isolationism. Some battles abroad need to be fought.

For many years if thought one of the worlds biggest failures has been the United Nations. Seems like a great idea but it's turned out to be a toothless dog. Just bark bark bark, where's the bite?

[dilettante]

That's a false narrative. It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf. Just as we shouldn't be letting citizens slip money to either side.

It reminds me of the crap with Ireland and Northern Ireland years ago, just on an even bloodier level.

[wes4dbt]

That's a false narrative. It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf.

So you don't mind getting involve in conflicts abroad, just as long as is doesn't cost anything. That would be a neat trick.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't even know which media camp is backing which side

Broadly it's Left supporting Palestine, Right Supporting Israel. There's lots of grey water, though, and not as simply defined.

It isn't "isolationism" to stop providing massive subsidies to one side or pouring money into arms and action on its behalf

It's isolationism unless you're proposing some other form of involvement. I don't think Isolationism is dirty word though. I personally believe in selective interventionism but I don't think the isolationist position is crazy.

From a transactional point of view, I think America is as powerful as it is because of it's interventions in the last century or so and I think you feel that in your pocket. You'd certainly be paying a whole lot more for your fuel right now (take it from a European, I know your prices have been jumping up but it's still dirt cheap over there by comparison). But, yeah, some of those interventions have descended into enormously expensive white elephants. They're only identifiable with hindsight though (and even then not reliably because you're still dealing with What Ifs).

From a moral point of view, I do think we have a responsibility to step in and lend support when we see a great injustice being done in the world. Sadly we rarely do step in on that basis and it's almost always the transactional argument that wins the day. There have been examples of moral intervention though. WW2 is the obvious stand out example but I think the conflicts that followed the break up of Yugoslavia also qualify.

You have to be real careful with the moral arguments, though, because they're subjective and well meaning interventions can easily head south in a hurry as the situation on the ground changes. E.g. I think the support the US gave to Israel following the Hamas attack is misguided in retrospect as the neighbouring Arab states haven't shown much interest to intervene on Palestine's behalf which was the fear - so we've observed two combative sides, one of which has a massive, high tech standing army and the other which has some second hand AKs and some hyperlites. We gave all the money to the side with the tanks who look increasingly like they're engaging in genocide, which doesn't leave us looking moral after all.

[dilettante]

So you don't mind getting involve in conflicts abroad, just as long as is doesn't cost anything. That would be a neat trick.

I'm not a fan of getting involved at all. That's not realistic though and things are more nuanced than that.

But who created the mess that became WW II in Europe? Or the one in Indo-China? The U.S. bears a lot of blame for war with Japan. I'm not sure that the Korean War wasn't a result of European soft-mouthing of global Communism. Who created the mess in the Middle East? Boer Wars? And on and on and on.

So much of it came from colonialism and then disrepect by Europeans. People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more.

[wes4dbt]

From a transactional point of view, I think America is as powerful as it is because of it's interventions in the last century or so and I think you feel that in your pocket. You'd certainly be paying a whole lot more for your fuel right now (take it from a European, I know your prices have been jumping up but it's still dirt cheap over there by comparison). But, yeah, some of those interventions have descended into enormously expensive white elephants. They're only identifiable with hindsight though (and even then not reliably because you're still dealing with What Ifs).

From a moral point of view, I do think we have a responsibility to step in and lend support when we see a great injustice being done in the world. Sadly we rarely do step in on that basis and it's almost always the transactional argument that wins the day. There have been examples of moral intervention though. WW2 is the obvious stand out example but I think the conflicts that followed the break up of Yugoslavia also qualify.

You have to be real careful with the moral arguments, though, because they're subjective and well meaning interventions can easily head south in a hurry as the situation on the ground changes. E.g. I think the support the US gave to Israel following the Hamas attack is misguided in retrospect as the neighbouring Arab states haven't shown much interest to intervene on Palestine's behalf which was the fear - so we've observed two combative sides, one of which has a massive, high tech standing army and the other which has some second hand AKs and some hyperlites. We gave all the money to the side with the tanks who look increasingly like they're engaging in genocide, which doesn't leave us looking moral after all.

Not sure I agree with our oil prices being so much lower because of our conflict involvements in the middle east. Our own oil production ability plays a large role in keeping the prices down and our business involvement are big factors. Not that we haven't military involvement in the middle east for business reasons.

Yeah, I wish all conflicts where as clear cut as WWII. But even that involvement was opposed here for a long time.

As for Israel/Hamas, I don't think the US was wrong to get involved at first. Though I don't understand why Israel was asking for help after just like two days. Did they really only have a couple of days of munitions stores. But once it was clear that Israel was killing thousands of innocents with no end in sight the US should have backed off the support. I don't understand this blind support the US has for Israel. It's been like that as long as I can remember. If a lot of our involvement is transactional based, then wat does Israel bring to the table?? I'm sure there's a reason for our support, I just don't know what it is.

Moral arguments are hard to truly justify since we pick some and ignore others. It does seem to be base much more on what's best for us.

I'm not a fan of getting involved at all. That's not realistic though and things are more nuanced than that.

But who created the mess that became WW II in Europe? Or the one in Indo-China? The U.S. bears a lot of blame for war with Japan. I'm not sure that the Korean War wasn't a result of European soft-mouthing of global Communism. Who created the mess in the Middle East? Boer Wars? And on and on and on.

So much of it came from colonialism and then disrepect by Europeans. People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more.

I'm not a fan of getting involved either. I was alright with Kuwait because it was such a clear unprovoked invasion. Plus we went in, achieved the stated goal and got out But I wasn't for the Iraq/Afghanistan involvements.

The mess that became WWII started at the end of WWI. Germany was destitute and everyone wanted more from them. Then in the 30's a world wide depression made it even worse. Desperate people will grab for any possible life line. Hitler convinced them he was that life line. At least enough people that he was appointed chancellor. After that you know what happened.

Boer Wars?? Was the US involved in that? The middle east mess is an ongoing mess. I actually have no idea how far back it goes or what started it. I don't think the the US or Europe started it but both of our hands are dirty.

I don't think we've been changing Europe's diaper. But I do think most of the world expects the US to take on an unfair share of the worlds problems. Some how China manages to keep uninvolved or actually take advantage of conflicts. I believe they're getting some really cheap gas prices from Russia because of the war in Ukraine.

Short term there are benefits for turning a blind eye to world problems, I'm not sure there is a long term benefit. Besides I like having friends and helping people. lol

[TysonLPrice]

Boer Wars?? Was the US involved in that?

From ChatGPT...yes but mainly no:


"Yes, indirectly. While the United States wasn't directly involved in the Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1899-1902), there was some interest and involvement from American individuals and businesses. Some Americans sympathized with the Boers (descendants of Dutch settlers) in their conflicts with the British due to a shared skepticism of imperialism.

American newspapers covered the wars extensively, and some American volunteers, like the "Rough Riders" led by Theodore Roosevelt (before he became president), expressed interest in joining the conflict on the side of the Boers, though they were not officially sanctioned to do so by the US government.

However, the US government itself did not participate militarily or formally in the Boer Wars"

[dilettante]

I guess I should be surprised to see the least important point being grasped so hard by the war apologists here.

My point was not the U.S., who has rarely been the most egregious aggressor, but instead dirty diaperland - the colonial powers.

[TysonLPrice]

I guess I should be surprised to see the least important point being grasped so hard by the war apologists here.

My point was not the U.S., who has rarely been the most egregious aggressor, but instead dirty diaperland - the colonial powers.

That won't happen if you don't try and make your point with things you just make up and throw out...

[dilettante]

LOL thanks. I've been missing your arguments by personal attack.

[FunkyDexter]

who has rarely been the most egregious aggressor

...oh wait... you're serious. You don't read a lot of history do you? There's some Mexicans who'd really like to have a word with you about he entire South West of your country. Not to mention the First Nationers who'd really like to discuss the rest of it. The entire history of your Nation is one of aggression against weaker neighbours.

People here are sick of changing Europe's diapers any more

And Vice Versa. Iraq... Afghanistan... You're welcome.

the colonial powers

but here you're right. If you're looking for the single Nation that's probably most responsible for the Israel/Palestine situation is probably us Brits. We promised it to both parties during WW1 when we wanted to court their support and then we led the resettling of Jews into the area without consideration for the indigenous Arabs post WW2 (although we also tried to prevent it when the massive numbers heading there became more apparent). All the allied nations (including the US) were party to the agreements, though, so you don't simply get to wash your hands of it.

Of course, you could blame the Egyptians if you're willing to engage in enough intellectual gymnastics. It's all Ramses fault.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would have brought up the Philippines before either of those. While the Mexicans can have some complaints, and the natives would have a wide variety of complaints, the depth of our misdeeds in the Philippines is still suppressed to this day. One could make arguments about the others along the lines of, "we didn't really know what we were doing, so it was kind of individual acts." Not so with the Philippines.

[FunkyDexter]

Ooh, good example. I'd forgotten the Philippines. I'll be honest that I don't know much about it beyond some history YouTube vids I've caught over the years. It goes completely untaught and mostly disregarded over here.

While I'm about it, I really should have mentioned all the South American proxy wars that were used to prop up friendly (and often awful) regimes.

Honestly, though, I think the US has been a broadly benign player on the world stage with spikes of unpleasant transactionalism. I think you guys have much to be proud of but I hate exceptionalism. Y'aint saints.

[wes4dbt]

Y'aint saints.

My mother is!!!!

[techgnome]

Ooh, good example. I'd forgotten the Philippines. I'll be honest that I don't know much about it beyond some history YouTube vids I've caught over the years. It goes completely untaught and mostly disregarded over here.

While I'm about it, I really should have mentioned all the South American proxy wars that were used to prop up friendly (and often awful) regimes.

Honestly, though, I think the US has been a broadly benign player on the world stage with spikes of unpleasant transactionalism. I think you guys have much to be proud of but I hate exceptionalism. Y'aint saints.

Should look into the Christian/Catholic treatment of Indigenous in Canada as recently as the '80's ... not all the bad crap is ancient news... some of it is quite contemporary... And you generally won't find it in any history book no matter how updated it is.


-tg