Is USA directly entering in the war, good or bad?

[The_Doc_Man]

I used to do pretty well with scotch & soda, but some years ago, my liver and I decided that we needed to part ways with anything for which one of the descriptions involved the word "proof" and they WEREN'T talking about anything that would stand up in court.

 

[arnelgp]

This is what I get on FB.

 

[SachAccess]

Thankfully the war is stopped now!

 

[Isaac]

your children need to play in underground bunkers to shield them from bombs falling from the sky on a daily basis. Every time you leave your family you wonder if the next bomb will take them from you. You need to talk to an Israeli who lives under those conditions

You do realize those words describe life in Gaza much more than life in Israel, right?
I'm all for a war when needed to terminate enemy combatants, but simply getting revenge by a prolonged effort having nothing to do with enemy combatants, destroying every last man woman and child's house, school, hospital, and food sources is not appropriate IMO.

The idea is to win the war, not cruelly destroy the lives of all the citizens. Or at least, should be.

 

[SachAccess]

I respect all the countries involved. Please correct me if am wrong.

I1 saying to I2 that you can not have XYZ.
I1 has it. A saying I2 can not have it but A too has it.
A and I1 saying having a XYZ is a risk to humanity.
P has XYZ. A says P is a fantastic country.
P is known for doing things which are not good for humanity.
R, C and N has XYZ and can provide XYZ to I2.
Now if I3 takes same stance against P what will be the advice from I1 and A.
And who decides that who can have XYZ and who can not have it.
Getting confused here.

My post is related only about XYZ. I am not going to other things which I1 or I2 or A does or have done in the past.

 

[Isaac]

Hmm. That was dizzying to follow but I think I got the gist of it.
This is one of the unfortunate realities of the modern day that we have to live with and cannot seem to avoid.

Having nuclear weapons while simultaneously saying another one cannot have nuclear weapons is one of the uncomfortable, but unavoidable things.

Iran is a nation that has been actively trying to hurt and kill Americans and westerners for many years, with varying degrees of success, too.

If a crazy man comes into the park where my children are playing and threatens, and hurts them repeatedly, if I have a gun, I'm going to stop that person, and it won't bother me at all to be 'hypocritical' and say I can have a gun and you can't. In that moment I'll be unconcerned what people's opinions are, I'll just know this dangerous, murderous person [Iran's schoolchildren chant Death to America] will not be allowed to have a gun under my watch.

The most powerful people will end up deciding who can or cannot have nuclear weapons. Let's hope that countries which generally want people to be free and prosperous (not those which crave the termination or genocide of their neighbors) are the ones who stay in the 'powerful' group.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm all for a war when needed to terminate enemy combatants, but simply getting revenge by a prolonged effort having nothing to do with enemy combatants, destroying every last man woman and child's house, school, hospital, and food sources is not appropriate IMO.

However, as a point of discussion, see the movie Ender's Game and consider perceived threat levels. When you have every reason to believe that your enemy honestly and seriously intends to wipe you off the face of the earth - AND that enemy swears that this intention is going to be in place FOREVER, how long do you try to dissuade that enemy before you permanently eliminate that threat? How long will it take you to decide that, like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives."

 

[Isaac]

However, as a point of discussion, see the movie Ender's Game and consider perceived threat levels. When you have every reason to believe that your enemy honestly and seriously intends to wipe you off the face of the earth - AND that enemy swears that this intention is going to be in place FOREVER, how long do you try to dissuade that enemy before you permanently eliminate that threat? How long will it take you to decide that, like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives."

I'd say definitely eliminate the threat, I just struggle to see how that corresponds to what they have actually done, in some part.
Eliminate Hamas, go in and destroy weapons caches etc., but to spend 2 years just razing the place to the ground and starving 2 million people without so much as toilet paper or anesthetics or food, is just wrong and has little to do with eliminating any threat, other than the threat to their ego.

 

[Isaac]

Israel targets military objectives. It does NOT target schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings the way Hamas does.

And yet, schools hospitals and apartment buildings are all razed to the ground. You can't tell me you haven't seen the pictures and videos, cuz they're everywhere - that's why nearly everyone at this point is giving Israel a stern look, even their typical supporters. Eventually you'll have to come 'round and admit that razing the entire Strip to the ground has nothing to do with a "conflict" or "eliminating the enemy", unless genocide is your actual goal

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And yet, schools hospitals and apartment buildings are all razed to the ground.

And yet, Hamas builds THEIR infrastructure under those schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings, thus guaranteeing that if you want to get to Hamas, you have to go through their civilian shields. Is this the behavior of a civilized opponent?

Eventually you'll have to come 'round and admit that razing the entire Strip to the ground has nothing to do with a "conflict" or "eliminating the enemy"

No, I won't have to come around. You STILL have no fair comparison. If/when Hamas stops hiding behind their civilians and faces their enemy in open combat, THEN we have a comparison to consider. The people of Gaza actually know how to end this... toss out Hamas. Toss them to the wolves. There is no simpler way to end their suffering. Just get rid of the Hamas monsters. Israel will follow those targets. That's all it will take to move the bull's eye off of Gaza.

 

[Isaac]

And yet, Hamas builds THEIR infrastructure under those schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings, thus guaranteeing that if you want to get to Hamas, you have to go through their civilian shields. Is this the behavior of a civilized opponent?



No, I won't have to come around. You STILL have no fair comparison. If/when Hamas stops hiding behind their civilians and faces their enemy in open combat, THEN we have a comparison to consider. The people of Gaza actually know how to end this... toss out Hamas. Toss them to the wolves. There is no simpler way to end their suffering. Just get rid of the Hamas monsters. Israel will follow those targets. That's all it will take to move the bull's eye off of Gaza.

I don't think hardly any of the people have that power.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I don't think hardly any of the people have that power

They might, they might not. In the narrow question of how to end this, I didn't say that the people of Gaza have the power. I just named potential solutions. But in fact, they do have knowledge, and knowledge is power. Just advise Israeli forces where Hamas is staying. However, there actually IS another solution - of sorts. Iran is the financier of so many of the atrocities committed by Hamas. But if Iran's economy continues to tank (currently, inflation has 1 US dollar worth 6 digits of Iranian dinars, I believe), pretty soon they won't be able to fund anything either. Iran says they will shut down the Straits of Hormuz - but that is the path through which their last money-maker comes - oil. If the inflation in Iran gets bad enough, we might not have to try to trigger a regime change. Economics will trigger a change for us.

 

[SachAccess]

Please use a little common sense in your arguments and don't make equivalence where there is none.

My sincere apologies to you if my post hurt you in any way. It is not my intention. As I said earlier, I do not have study on these issues I am just trying to understand from the actual people rather being dependent on media or social media.

 

[Isaac]

I have a conscience, and while I know Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, they have gone way too far, it's obvious and unconscionable to me. If a bad man had hurt my family and I was chasing him through the mall, I wouldn't take out a machine gun and mow down a crowd, hoping a bullet went thru them to him. But I agree to disagree : )

 

[moke123]

Your post didn't hurt anyone. It was a creative distillation of what you think is going on but it showed a complete lack of understanding of the issue. You equate the terrorists of Hamas who specifically attack civilians with the military of Israel who specifically attack military targets. Really? In your mind that is the same?

reports indicate that Israel has hit civilian targets, resulting in numerous civilian casualties.
Key Points:

• Allegations of War Crimes: Various sources, including UN human rights bodies and organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have concluded that Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, with civilian losses and destruction of civilian infrastructure being attributed as "inevitable results of Israel's chosen strategy".
• Strikes on Residential Buildings and Civilian Infrastructure: There are reports of Israeli strikes on residential buildings, apartment complexes, schools, universities, hospitals, and water infrastructure, leading to mass civilian casualties.
• Disregard for Distinction and Proportionality: The high number of civilian casualties and the widespread destruction of civilian objects suggest a disregard for the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law.
• Targeting of Healthcare Facilities and Personnel: UN investigators have specifically accused Israel of deliberately targeting Gaza's health facilities and killing medical personnel.
• Israeli Explanations: The Israeli government has maintained that their attacks on hospitals and schools in Gaza are aimed at targeting Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, a claim that Hamas has denied. Israel has also stated that they have taken measures to minimize civilian harm, but the scale of the casualties suggests otherwise.

It is important to note that:

• International humanitarian law requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objectives. Direct attacks on civilians are prohibited, and indiscriminate attacks are considered war crimes.
• The International Criminal Court is investigating the situation in Palestine, including alleged war crimes committed by all parties to the conflict.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

while I know Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, they have gone way too far, it's obvious and unconscionable to me.

The slogan used by Hamas is "from the river to the sea" - implying that when they are finished there will be no Israelis between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, i.e. total annihilation of Israel. Tell me again how Israel is going too far with an enemy that repeatedly has vowed to exterminate them, an enemy that won't stop attacking, and an enemy that kills babies and unarmed young women. The videos exist for that and for worse atrocities.

Your problem is that you don't understand, don't seem to grasp fully that this is NOT a police action. It is a WAR action, where you end the war when your enemy has no capacity to resist.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@moke123, I read your list. But what was missing from that statement was that the Israeli provocation was Oct. 7th when there was no distinction or proportionality in the people that Hamas killed, including children and unarmed women not in uniform. That should ALSO have qualified as war crimes - by Hamas as the provocateur. Hamas went into residential buildings to destroy whole families. As to the medical buildings, we have seen videos of the Hamas infrastructure UNDER those buildings. When you are confronted by barbarians who consider a civilian as just another shield of flesh, the designation of "war crimes" is pointing the wrong direction.

 

[moke123]

Pat, you are awfully violent.

I was only responding to your comments to SachAccess. No need for you to put words in my mouth with what you think I think, nor make assertions that I'm anti-semetic. I asked A.I. if Israel targets civilians because you emphatically stated they don't. That was A.I.'s response. (couldn't put it in quotes because it get's cut off)

 

[SachAccess]

You equate the terrorists of Hamas who specifically attack civilians with the military of Israel who specifically attack military targets. Really? In your mind that is the same?

Dear @Pat Hartman , please allow to be more clear on this. My question is,

Is USA directly entering in the war, good or bad?​

I have 0 sympathy, empathy, soft corner, compassion for the organization you have mentioned. I am from the country which has suffered a lot due such organizations. I wanted to use more strong and apt words for such people however for the respect of forum I am not doing it.
Due to my limited understanding of the issue, I have tried to limit my scope to my original question only.
Once again, any innocent life lost is always sad. USA entering in the war and what Israel is suffering due to such people are 2 different things. I just wanted to know, is USA doing a right thing or wrong thing by directly entering the war.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Is USA directly entering in the war, good or bad?​

War is always a bad thing. Sometimes, taking quick, limited action can actually stop a bigger, more dangerous war later on. The hard part is figuring out when it really helps... and when it just makes everything worse.

It's difficult to know who's doing what when the press is busy trying to score political points for their allies.