Thinking that it would be a very bad thing if I were laid off doesn’t mean that it won’t ever happen to me.
Your post doesn’t answer my question.
Israel is a small country, with a small population, surrounded by larger countries whose populations at least are very hostile (even when the governments currently in place aren’t), and who won’t forever lag long behind economically, technologically, militarily.
If you think that given the current situation, you’re as good as dead the day you stop being the strongest, wouldn’t trying to find a long-lasting solution while you still have the upper hand make more sense than stating basically in a previous post : “we’ll keep hitting them harder than they hit us until they give up”?
Thanks. I know you do, but the broad brushes being weilded was kinda insulting.
Precisely. being Swedish, I don’t have a lot of national pride in our role in WWII, but it’s a bit too easy to say that the U.S. saved Europe. As you point out, it was an allied effort where the U.S. played a crucial part.
That’s very kind of you and maybe some time in the future I’ll feel tempted to see some Jewish holy sites, but for some reason I’m much more attracted to Canadian battle-sites in western Europe. One day I’ll start at Juno and head east.
And the US may well be very different today if the French hadn’t “saved your arses” a couple of centuries back. So does that make you even with them now or…?
As the other phrase goes, “the US are trying to make up for being late for the first two world wars by starting the third one early”. Sorry, that last phrase is one that got bounced around a lot as a laugh with some friends in the US years ago now…it’s one that always just makes me chuckle when these sort of discussions come around again
Bombing is a wonderful inducement for rational, levelheaded people. Alas, these people appear to be irrational. If bombing only upsets them more, then there’s really no hope that they’ll “see the light.”
So many posters on this board want an intellectual, hippie, “feel-good” solution for all conflicts. It’s great when it works. But when it doesn’t work, Plan B is in order.
To end certain conflicts, some people *need *to die. In this case, Hamas needs to die. Will there be collateral damage? Will innocents die? Perhaps. But if it means eliminating Hamas, it would be worth it.
Because the likeliest alternatives (letting Hamas and similar groups operate unfettered; driving all Palestinians out of disputed territories) are worse.
More of the Hamas = the holocaust rhetoric. Exactly as predicted, without this narrative Israelis wouldn’t be nearly so degraded. Avram/Abraham Burg had a recent article on this. looking …
