Israel Declares War For The First Time Since 1973.

Israel's position is clear. Who in their right mind would fund both sides in a war? (apart from the Rothchild cartel of the early 20th century)If we ceased funding Israel, Iran, and other states would continue to rearm Hezbollah and Hamas. The beast needs its head cut off to die. How else can these wars be avoided? It is quite clear that the official position of radical Islam calls for Israel's funeral. The closest the two sides have ever come is when Arafat met Clinton and Began at Camp David. Name any other country in the region capable of using our aid humanely. (Not that Israel is any better)The Jewish Lobby in the US is powerful and well-entrenched. Thank God Hezbollah has no comparable influence here, though it would not surprise me if they show up in some form at the campus protests!

Restraint won't work unless we can order the nations who supply Hamas and Hezbollah to also quit funding them.I would argue that the terror organizations kill their own civilians...likely some weird martyr concept. I also see Israeli citizens beginning to die though in smaller numbers than Lebanese and Palestinians.The bottom line is that you can not make a case that Hamas and Hezbollah *don't* purposely place their populations in the war.

God, I can't type. That was supposed to be Message 429, Message 430, Message 431.--Percy

You're using the "but they're doing it, too" argument. Atrocities by one side do not make atrocities by the other side okay. What's more, Israel has been committing atrocities against West Bank Palestinians for decades. It doesn't matter whether Hamas purposefully co-located themselves with civilians or not. Hitting targets occupied by civilians is not okay. It is a war crime, and we should not be supporting another country's commission of war crimes.--Percy

So despite the numbers, both sides murder civilians. Israel has more powerful weapons at its disposal and often insists on finishing a campaign rather than surrender to peace talks which in their opinion allow the enemy to remain intact. Conversely, the enemy (Hezbollah, Hamas, and Irans radical element) have stated that they want Israel either fully eliminated or at best neutralized and put in their "place". Apart from the amount of weapons at Israels disposal versus the weapons provided to the terrorist groups through Iran (and Russia) I see little difference in the stated aims of each side.You would have Israel forced to negotiate through diplomacy. Israel sees the enemy as a threat as long as they exist.You mentioned the role of parents in coaching their children. As long as Lebanese parents allow their adult children to join Hezbollah and as long as whats left of Gaza allows Hamas to remain, there will not be a lasting peace.As long as Iran funds these terror organizations there will be no peace. Iran is at least as complicit as the United States.The UN wants Western Hegemony to end. They are tired of the military dominance of the United States. Apart from NATO which welcomes us as a member of their club, the 3rd world and global south is increasingly under the sway of China and BRICS.The conservatives see the world as it is. The progressives hope for a better world and better human behavior and actions. It is no secret that China plans on assuming the role of the penultimate military and economic power within ten years. Peace is always preferred over war by most of us, but war is often the best solution for a nation looking out for its own survival.

In other words, you would force Israel to quit defending itself and committing offensive war crimes yet you have no solution to the problem of Iranian-funded terror groups.It goes both ways.Would you call the Allied bombardment of cities in World War II a war crime? By what authority do you judge the manner with which a nation conducts war? You have many complaints but few if any solutions.

Please tell us more.

When you said "the Palestinians" you were referring to the Palestinians in Gaza, not Hamas. The Palestinians in Gaza are not murdering Israeli civilians. The Palestinians in Gaza are not the enemy. They are the victims. All you're doing is making clear that you began with a statement about the Palestinians and then somehow shifted your focus to terrorist groups. I have no idea what's going on in that mind of yours or how to continue a discussion where you confuse the groups so dramatically. The terrorist groups want the destruction of Israel, while Israel only wants the destruction of the terrorist groups, not of the Palestinians. Israel's position on the possibility of a Palestinian state varies over time depending upon who's running the government. Netanyahu is against it, of course, but former Israeli prime ministers have supported the idea. You are delusional. When have I ever said anything like this? Yes, of course, and Israel's current approach guarantees the production of many potential recruits for these terrorist groups, insuring that they will continue to exist for a good long time. You're imagining things again. I've never said anything like this in this thread, and I can't find anyone else saying this either. Given how often people detect you concocting things that have never happened, does it never occur to you to verify what you're thinking before putting fingers in gear? Peace requires that Israel cease terrorizing and murdering Palestinians, in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, and throughout Israel wherever Palestinians may reside. Yes, of course the U.S. is complicit in Israel's terrorist acts and war crimes, because we supply the money and the weaponry. That's what I've been arguing for message after message here. Where have you been? When you say that the U.S. is at least as complicit as Iran I hope you realize that this is a bad thing and not a justification for our behavior. It is, in fact, an indictment of our behavior, which is as bad as a terrorist state like Iran. I think you've forgotten the thread's topic again, but anyway, what's wrong with all the world's countries being equal partners? For good reason. America has misused its military dominance almost from day one when it stumbled into Vietnam, and the pattern has continued ever since. Our last "good" war, meaning we actually *were* the good guys, was WWII. I think you know what the letters in NATO stand for, so holding that in mind, why would you say this? We were not "welcomed" into NATO by the existing members. We are a founding member, a signatory of the founding North Atlantic Treaty. You're really drifting way off topic. Conservatives tend to interpret current events in the context of a world long gone. In it's current incarnation conservatism is a dour and negative perspective. And what's wrong with positive, optimistic aspirations? Uh, okay. And what's the tie-in to the Mideast? Of course, like Great Britain during the Blitz. But definitely not like the Vietnam War, not like the interventions in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, and not like the First and Second Gulf Wars.--Percy

I understand that rebuttals are much easier when you just make up what other people say, but you do it so much that the actual effect is to convince people that you're a either a dishonest debater or delusional or mentally inept.I never said I wanted to "force Israel to quit defending itself." Of course I want Israel to have the means to defend itself. I want every country to be so equipped.What I actually said is that we should cease monetary and military support for a country committing war crimes. We do not want to be complicit in war crimes. The bombing of Dresden was clearly a war crime. If you want to name other cities then go ahead and I'll look up the details. Unable to rebut my arguments you're instead questioning my right to hold an opinion? Really? And you have many delusions. I've made only one complaint in this thread, and that's U.S. support for Israel's commission of war crimes.--Percy

My response is that confronting these terror groups is the only way to defeat them. If civilians are involved, it may well be a war crime but the terror groups hide among civilian populations. Being nice does not get rid of terror groups with a sworn ideology against Israel.And about Dresden. ]Though some argued that Dresden was a definite war crime, there was evidence that much German wartime industry was hidden there. The difference between Nazi Germany and Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran is that in modern war, these groups operate almost exclusively amongst civilians. There is simply no other way to neutralize them. (Granted only for a time) Do you honestly think any cease-fire and peace can ever come about without further trouble ahead? Israel has a right to exist and a duty to its own citizens to eliminate terror groups.

So nothing about the Rothschilds (yes correct spelling is important)?

I have searched and found some literature but nothing definite. I DID find a snippet from Wikipedia that sums up what is known. The idea that differing Rothschild banks lent money to different sides in wars could well be no more than an urban legend or antisemitic bias, though at this point I am uncertain.

To begin with, its unrealistic. If you were representing a wee country with moderate poverty and no assets to contribute, why would the Western people be charged to take care of them?All that makes happen is for our Average cost of living to increase and our standard of living to decrease.

Thus concludes today's lesson.

Evidence?
World finance and eliminating poverty is not a zero-sum game. Maybe in the world of gold backed currency, but not in any real-world scenario.