Israel

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Any US president could have stopped the assault on Gaza, and at any time.

I'm not going to blow smoke up his arse for supplying Israel with as much weaponry as they have, and to allow them to act with impunity for so long.

The stance the US has taken in the UN during this has been a disgrace. That stance flows from Trump. 

Better late than never, yes, but the adulation going his way is nauseating. 

 

Any US president could have stopped the assault on Gaza, and at any time.

Let’s deal in facts. Biden didn’t FACT. Trump has FACT. The above statement is speculation, nothing more. Actually it’s incorrect because your saying Biden could have stopped it anytime…why didn’t he find a peaceful solution then?

The response you made doesn’t surprise me. If Starmer stopped the Ukraine war I would credit him that despite domestically being a poor PM he  managed a great and defining feat. I wouldn’t say that either Reform or the Conservatives could have achieved peace. One, because they didn’t and, two, because it wouldn’t be a balanced and reasonable response

Edited Friday at 15:47 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Any US president could have stopped the assault on Gaza, and at any time.

Let’s deal in facts. Biden didn’t FACT. Trump has FACT. The above statement is speculation, nothing more. Actually it’s incorrect because your saying Biden could have stopped it anytime…why didn’t he then?

The response you made doesn’t surprise me. If Starmer stopped the Ukraine war I would credit him that despite domestically being a poor PM he  managed a great and defining feat. I wouldn’t say that either Reform or the Conservatives could have achieved peace. One, because they didn’t and, two, because it wouldn’t be a balanced and reasonable response

Biden didn't, no. Trump played a part in it, yes. That doesn't alter the reality that any US president could and should have stopped this earlier. 

Not sure why you think this is an anti Trump thing from me. Biden's stance was disgraceful too. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Any US president could have stopped the assault on Gaza, and at any time.

Let’s deal in facts. Biden didn’t FACT. Trump has FACT. The above statement is speculation, nothing more. Actually it’s incorrect because your saying Biden could have stopped it anytime…why didn’t he find a peaceful solution then?

The response you made doesn’t surprise me. If Starmer stopped the Ukraine war I would credit him that despite domestically being a poor PM he  managed a great and defining feat. I wouldn’t say that either Reform or the Conservatives could have achieved peace. One, because they didn’t and, two, because it wouldn’t be a balanced and reasonable response

Could any US president have stopped the war at any time by getting all the hostages released and by securing agreements from both sides?

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Biden didn't, no. Trump played a part in it, yes. That doesn't alter the reality that any US president could and should have stopped this earlier. 

Not sure why you think this is an anti Trump thing from me. Biden's stance was disgraceful too. 

Just stopping a war like that isn’t that simplistic. Otherwise we could stop pretty much all wars. You often need to get both sides to compromise- that is the art of negotiation. The point is, to Trumps credit, he has managed to secure a solution with both sides agreement in what is an incredibly complex situation, with years of hatred built up. In fact the more you think about it, it’s bloody impressive regardless of politics (working with neighbouring countries)
 

Other Presidents did not and to say they could have is speculation. The question that hypochondriac asked is the right one in this context. 

Edited Friday at 15:58 by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

Any president could stop the war in Ukraine at any time too. All you'd need is a tactical nuke. Obviously how you end a conflict is an important consideration as much as just ending it.

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Any president could stop the war in Ukraine at any time too. All you'd need is a tactical nuke. Obviously how you end a conflict is an important consideration as much as just ending it.

Exactly. I’m sure the woke brigade will be chanting his name in support as he has helped fulfill one of their key objectives. Probably not, I suspect they will have to find some other vogue issue they understand little of to protest about.

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m sure the woke brigade

You funny man

[egg]

33 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Any president could stop the war in Ukraine at any time too. All you'd need is a tactical nuke. Obviously how you end a conflict is an important consideration as much as just ending it.

You're losing it mate. 

Nobody is using a nuke. Any US president can turn off the tap to Israel. The two things are about as different as you could get. 

[rallyboy]

29 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m sure the woke brigade will be chanting his name in support as he has helped fulfill one of their key objectives. Probably not, I suspect they will have to find some other vogue issue 

Is the Woke Brigade some special ops unit and if they are secret why are they modelling in an issue of Vogue?

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

You're losing it mate. 

Nobody is using a nuke. Any US president can turn off the tap to Israel. The two things are about as different as you could get. 

FFS. I swear you do it deliberately. Nowhere did I suggest that using a nuke in Ukraine was the same as removing support from Israel. The point I was making was obvious. Of course any president could have stopped Israel at any point but how the war is ended is an important consideration. Cutting off all support for Israel would have not been a satisfactory conclusion for anyone other than Hamas.

[AlexLaw76]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

You're losing it mate. 

Nobody is using a nuke. Any US president can turn off the tap to Israel. The two things are about as different as you could get. 

Any president can turn off the tap to Ukraine 

[badgerx16]

"A Gaza ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, which began its first phase this week, could have been implemented over a year ago, an independent Israeli negotiator revealed.

Gershon Baskin, who negotiated the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2011, revealed in The Times piece that Hamas agreed to the exact same terms as early as September 2024 during the final months of the Biden administration.

Baskin said that while Hamas accepted the deal in writing and in voice messages, the Israeli government, led by then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, refused to act. “This deal could have been done a long time ago,” Baskin wrote, noting that American officials also failed to push for its adoption.

According to Baskin, U.S. negotiators, including Brett McGurk, were frustrated in their attempts to convince the Biden administration to consider the plan. “In Doha, the Qataris said they could do nothing more without the American adoption of the plan; the obstacle was Israel,” he added.

Baskin said that Israeli officials had no intention of concluding a deal before a U.S. administration change. On December 26, 2024, he met with Ronen Bar, then head of Shin Bet, who told him not to use back channels, hinting that a ceasefire would be finalised “in three weeks” under President Trump. Baskin then established a back channel with Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, believing that Trump could compel Netanyahu to accept the agreement."

https://caliber.az/en/post/deal-between-israel-and-hamas-was-ready-a-year-ago-says-negotiator

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Any president can turn off the tap to Ukraine 

As as I know they're resisting and not smashing up another land, starving it's people, and destroying all it's infrastructure. If I've misunderstood and the Gaza people are in the same boat as the Russians, please enlighten me. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Any president can turn off the tap to Ukraine 

Yep. That war could be over very quickly and anyone could end it.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Yep. That war could be over very quickly and anyone could end it.

And possibly trigger WW3. No danger of that by choking Israel. 

Daft, daft point from you. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

And possibly trigger WW3. No danger of that by choking Israel. 

Daft, daft point from you. 

Why would it trigger WW3?

is Russia going to hit NATO? We know the answer to that

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

Just stopping a war like that isn’t that simplistic. Otherwise we could stop pretty much all wars. You often need to get both sides to compromise- that is the art of negotiation. The point is, to Trumps credit, he has managed to secure a solution with both sides agreement in what is an incredibly complex situation, with years of hatred built up. In fact the more you think about it, it’s bloody impressive regardless of politics (working with neighbouring countries)
 

Other Presidents did not and to say they could have is speculation. The question that hypochondriac asked is the right one in this context. 

When Trump took over there was an agreement, if I remember rightly it didn’t go to the second phase (Israel withdrawing from Gaza and more hostages being released) after Trump revealed his plans for turning Gaza into a resort for rich Israelis/Americans.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Any president can turn off the tap to Ukraine 

Trump has tried.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Why would it trigger WW3?

is Russia going to hit NATO? We know the answer to that

There's a reason NATO have limited their involvement. You know that. 

Any suggestion that "any president" could use a tactical nuke in that conflict is ridiculous. The US wouldn't, ditto Russia. 

 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

And possibly trigger WW3. No danger of that by choking Israel. 

Daft, daft point from you. 

Right so if ending the war by cutting all support for Israel doesn't cause any sort of larger war who gives a fuck about any consequences beyond that as long as we aren't directly affected? At least you're honest.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

There's a reason NATO have limited their involvement. You know that. 

Any suggestion that "any president" could use a tactical nuke in that conflict is ridiculous. The US wouldn't, ditto Russia. 

 

There is one President with the ability to stop the Ukraine war within 2 hours - the President of Russia. However, he can't afford to lose face.

Edited Friday at 17:08 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

There's a reason NATO have limited their involvement. You know that. 

Any suggestion that "any president" could use a tactical nuke in that conflict is ridiculous. The US wouldn't, ditto Russia. 

 

It is farcical to think that the slaughter of Ukrainians daily is what is keeping WW3 at bay.

No one thinks, not believes that 

That war would be over in weeks/months if the US turned off the money, resources and support to Ukraine. Probably saving 1000s of lives. 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Right so if ending the war by cutting all support for Israel doesn't cause any sort of larger war who gives a fuck about any consequences beyond that as long as we aren't directly affected? At least you're honest.

What consequences? Less dead children?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

There's a reason NATO have limited their involvement. You know that. 

Any suggestion that "any president" could use a tactical nuke in that conflict is ridiculous. The US wouldn't, ditto Russia. 

 

You must know I wasn't literally calling for the US to use a tactical nuke right? When I compared any president being able to stop a war (or cut support), I used the Ukraine / nuke example as a provocative illustration of “in theory, war can be ended quickly.” The fact you seriously thought I was equating nuclear warfare with withdrawing military or material support is mindboggling. That was a rhetorical exaggeration, not a literal claim. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

There is one President with the ability to stop the Ukraine war within 2 hours - the President of Russia.

Same in Israel. Hamas could have released all the hostages on Oct 8th 2023 and saved everyone a load of trouble 

[east-stand-nic]

7 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Something something pot something something ketlle.

Please shown me where. 

Thanks now. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

What consequences? Less dead children?

Why are not using the same logic to cut off all support for Ukraine? It should quickly lead to a Ukrainian surrender and less dead children than would otherwise be the case.

[aintforever]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Why are not using the same logic to cut off all support for Ukraine? It should quickly lead to a Ukrainian surrender and less dead children than would otherwise be the case.

Ukraine will not stop fighting regardless of what the US do.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Ukraine will not stop fighting regardless of what the US do.

They would pretty quickly if the US turned off the tap. Our thoughts and prayers from Europe would only go so far 

Edited Friday at 17:14 by AlexLaw76

[hypochondriac]

Just now, aintforever said:

Ukraine will not stop fighting regardless of what the US do.

They would if they had no means to defend themselves and would be forced to. Similarly, are you imagining that Israel would have stopped attempting to retrieve the hostages if their support was cut ?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why are not using the same logic to cut off all support for Ukraine? It should quickly lead to a Ukrainian surrender and less dead children than would otherwise be the case.

Because the two conflicts are so different that mentioning them in the same context shows obtusity. 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They would pretty quickly if the US turned off the tap. Our thoughts and prayers from Europe would only go so far 

Europe give more in aid than the US.

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They would if they had no means to defend themselves and would be forced to. Similarly, are you imagining that Israel would have stopped attempting to retrieve the hostages if their support was cut ?

Ah bless, you actually believe Israel’s motivation is to retrieve the hostages.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Europe give more in aid than the US.

And combined, we are just managing to let Ukraine lose slowly. Imagine if half of that was cut?

what is not factored is the type of support the US give, intelligence, command and control, deep strike missiles. Stuff we simply do not have.

some of the good kit we provide requires the US extended support 

Edited Friday at 17:19 by AlexLaw76

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

And combined, we are just managing to let Ukraine lose slowly. Imagine if half of that was cut?

what is not factored is the type of support the US give, intelligence, command and control, deep strike missiles. Stuff we simply do not have.

They would be in a worse position but there is no way they are just going to roll over and let Russia take everything. If they did that it would be a bloodbath anyway, they don’t have any choice but to fight.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

They would be in a worse position but there is no way they are just going to roll over and let Russia take everything. If they did that it would be a bloodbath anyway, they don’t have any choice but to fight.

Worse? They would be entirely fucked 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Because the two conflicts are so different that mentioning them in the same context shows obtusity. 

In both cases, you’ve got a state engaged in war, civilians tragically being killed and Western governments materially supporting one side. If your argument is that the moral thing to do is to stop funding and arms supplies to reduce civilian casualties, that principle should logically apply to all conflicts, not just the one where you happen to find the state’s actions more objectionable.

The situations are, of course, different in their causes and politics, but the underlying moral question — “does continued support prolong the killing?” — is the same. If you think it’s justified to continue backing Ukraine despite the inevitable civilian toll, then surely you can see why others think that the consequences of cutting Israel off overnight would be far more complicated than it sounds. Maybe I'm being too charitable. You did after all believe I was talking about a literal nuke.

Edited Friday at 17:27 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Worse? They would be entirely fucked 

Still with no choice but to fight, it would just cost Europe more.

If the US cut everything NATO is finished so Europe will also have no choice but to step up anyway.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

They would be in a worse position but there is no way they are just going to roll over and let Russia take everything. If they did that it would be a bloodbath anyway, they don’t have any choice but to fight.

You think if the US stopped supporting Israel tomorrow that they would just roll over and allow Hamas and their surrounding enemies to do what they liked? Do you think Israel would believe they had any choice but to fight?

Edited Friday at 17:25 by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Still with no choice but to fight, it would just cost Europe more.

If the US cut everything NATO is finished so Europe will also have no choice but to step up anyway.

And back to Israel. US turning off the tap would mean they are a less influential stakeholder, and Israel would probably wipe Gaza/Palestine off the face off the earth. Or try their best to do so in a short space of time.

Edited Friday at 17:29 by AlexLaw76

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You think if the US stopped supporting Israel tomorrow that they would just roll over and allow Hamas and their surrounding enemies to do what they liked? Do you think Israel would believe they had any choice but to fight?

The US and Israel are one of the same, if they seriously threatened to cut support Israel would stop the killing tomorrow.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

 The US and Israel are one of the same, if they seriously threatened to cut support Israel would stop the killing tomorrow.

I don't agree. Without the hostages back in that scenario not a chance would they just retreat and stop trying to retrieve them. Not a chance would they not put up a resistance to Hamas massing on their border and threatening them.

Edited Friday at 17:32 by hypochondriac

[egg]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

The US and Israel are one of the same, if they seriously threatened to cut support Israel would stop the killing tomorrow.

Yep. That's the point. 

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't agree. Without the hostages back in that scenario not a chance would they just retreat and stop trying to retrieve them. Not a chance would they not put up a resistance to Hamas massing on their border and threatening them.

They could have got all the hostages back under Biden’s plan, they chose not to because the more they lay waste to Gaza the easier it will be to implement Trump’s plan. Make it uninhabitable, force the locals out then they can take what they want - taking what they want is what Israel does.

Edited Friday at 17:45 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Please shown me where. 

Thanks now. 

Pretty much your entire posting history in the Lounge.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

They could have got all the hostages back under Biden’s plan, the chose not to because the more they lay waste to Gaza the easier it will be to implement Trump’s plan. Make it uninhabitable, force the locals out then they can take what they want - taking what they want is what Israel does.

There have always been two objectives-get back the hostages and make Hamas and their other enemies less of a threat to Israel. Getting the hostages back but leaving Hamas in power and next to Israel is just asking for another similar attack in the near future.

[east-stand-nic]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Pretty much your entire posting history in the Lounge.

Aw. Another one hurting from being shown up by me so many times. There there. You'll be ok. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

There have always been two objectives-get back the hostages and make Hamas and their other enemies less of a threat to Israel. Getting the hostages back but leaving Hamas in power and next to Israel is just asking for another similar attack in the near future.

That's the 2 that you choose to believe.

I think the hostages were a consideration, rather than an objective. 

They said they wanted to eliminate Hamas. That was never going to happen. They knew that. They wanted to weaken them and their supporters, on that we agree. They absolutely wanted to draw in Iran and possibly others. Iran took the bait. Tactically they got that right. 

Smashing up Gaza was also an objective, particularly it's infrastructure. Whilst I don't claim it to be a government policy, if you watch footage of IDF soldiers, killing as many Palestinians as possible was their objective. 

[aintforever]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There have always been two objectives-get back the hostages and make Hamas and their other enemies less of a threat to Israel. Getting the hostages back but leaving Hamas in power and next to Israel is just asking for another similar attack in the near future.

Do you really believe that even if they killed every single member of Hamas it will change anything going forward?

Killing just leads to more hatred and more killing.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Do you really believe that even if they killed every single member of Hamas it will change anything going forward?

Killing just leads to more hatred and more killing.

I absolutely think that seriously degrading Hamas and then creating a wider buffer zone around Israel will make Israel safer. It won't prevent all attacks or make them completely safe but that was never possible. Soggy used that same argument when the US were destroying IS. He might have had a point if they hadn't been decimated and destroyed.

Edited Friday at 18:03 by hypochondriac