[GK3]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

[GK3]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

Okay, where should we fit in this mess? What say you? Bail Israel out of another mess of their own creation? Are you saying they should never have ceded power in Gaza to a freely elected government elected by the Palestinian residents? 

Here's a pretty interesting take on the topic from a cousin of Daniel Pearl: https://www.thefp.com/p/daniel-pearl-cou...s-idealism

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

Okay, where should we fit in this mess? What say you? Bail Israel out of another mess of their own creation? Are you saying they should never have ceded power in Gaza to a freely elected government elected by the Palestinian residents? 

Here's a pretty interesting take on the topic from a cousin of Daniel Pearl: https://www.thefp.com/p/daniel-pearl-cou...s-idealism

[BigJohn043]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

So if you have no clue what the solution is, then why are you criticizing those who are in positions of power and have to make difficult decisions with no good choices?

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

[BigJohn043]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

So if you have no clue what the solution is, then why are you criticizing those who are in positions of power and have to make difficult decisions with no good choices?

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

So if you have no clue what the solution is, then why are you criticizing those who are in positions of power and have to make difficult decisions with no good choices?

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

Great post.

[cardcrimson]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

Marie Antoinette. Not Mary. Most likely, she never uttered the phrase you mention: from Britannica "More important, though, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it."

Turns out it was fake news (aka propaganda) put forth by the revolutionaries. Imagine, people motivated to chop of your head for something you never said.

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-mar...no%20bread.

I can imagine. In high school, I was standing with my closest friend next to a repellent, recent transfer student who uttered a foul racial slur. A teacher heard the slur, turned around and looked at me and said "I heard that, Mick." My friend said "Mick didn't say that, xxxx said it." The teacher -- my English teacher, who would only teach one year at the high school level, and was in an interracial marriage -- said "I heard Mick say it."

I had straight A's in high school...except for that class. The good doctor made his point, I had a B every quarter. We had a major disagreement over Animal Farm. He contended that it was a Nazi allegory, my contention was that it was a character-by-character satiric allegory of the Russian Revolution (which is what Orwell contended).

Always fun to be punished for something you didn't do.

Time we started thinking about where out country fits in this mess.  Israel is seemingly pushing Iran to the point where it will have to act to maintain is position of influence.  I am afraid Israel assumes we will bail them out if Iran gets involved and possibly gains other support from Muslim countries.  We have already asked 1,000s of our military members to put their lives at risk as the result of 9/11.  Is it our job to bail Israel out of another mess that is partially of it's creation?  By this I mean the current governments treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. If Israel kills  100's or 1000's of non Hamas Palestinian's will  that ever be forgotten or just another ember to keep the fires burning forever. I have no clue what the solution is and I don't think anyone does, but killing and more killing is most likely not the answer.

So if you have no clue what the solution is, then why are you criticizing those who are in positions of power and have to make difficult decisions with no good choices?

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

Great post.

[fullmetal]

Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

[fullmetal]

Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

[TrumpCard]

1697424755[/url]']
Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

I appreciate this comment. Modesty is the best policy when it comes to the public commenting on foreign affairs, especially when clouded by the fog of war. I am hopeful, however, that Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Netanyahu, etc., are making decisions based on actual facts. Also, I note that there is no report yet of a ground invasion. I’m dubious that waiting this long would be the optimal military strategy. My inference is that Israel actually is trying to mitigate risk to civilian lives. 

In the bigger picture, I feel something needs to be said. Judaism is a peaceful religion. We say a prayer for peace every time we read from the Torah, which is weekly for me, more frequently for many others. Every time we bless our children, we ask for God to give them peace. Jews do not relish this war. We are terrified of it. I know that Islam is a peaceful religion as well. Many Palestinians want the same thing that Jews want. 

As is obvious from the events of the last 8-9 days, this is a war of Hamas’ choosing. Israel wants to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

[TrumpCard]

1697424755[/url]']
Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

I appreciate this comment. Modesty is the best policy when it comes to the public commenting on foreign affairs, especially when clouded by the fog of war. I am hopeful, however, that Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Netanyahu, etc., are making decisions based on actual facts. Also, I note that there is no report yet of a ground invasion. I’m dubious that waiting this long would be the optimal military strategy. My inference is that Israel actually is trying to mitigate risk to civilian lives. 

In the bigger picture, I feel something needs to be said. Judaism is a peaceful religion. We say a prayer for peace every time we read from the Torah, which is weekly for me, more frequently for many others. Every time we bless our children, we ask for God to give them peace. Jews do not relish this war. We are terrified of it. I know that Islam is a peaceful religion as well. Many Palestinians want the same thing that Jews want. 

As is obvious from the events of the last 8-9 days, this is a war of Hamas’ choosing. Israel wants to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

[cardcrimson]

1697424755[/url]']
Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

I appreciate this comment. Modesty is the best policy when it comes to the public commenting on foreign affairs, especially when clouded by the fog of war. I am hopeful, however, that Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Netanyahu, etc., are making decisions based on actual facts. Also, I note that there is no report yet of a ground invasion. I’m dubious that waiting this long would be the optimal military strategy. My inference is that Israel actually is trying to mitigate risk to civilian lives. 

In the bigger picture, I feel something needs to be said. Judaism is a peaceful religion. We say a prayer for peace every time we read from the Torah, which is weekly for me, more frequently for many others. Every time we bless our children, we ask for God to give them peace. Jews do not relish this war. We are terrified of it. I know that Islam is a peaceful religion as well. Many Palestinians want the same thing that Jews want. 

As is obvious from the events of the last 8-9 days, this is a war of Hamas’ choosing. Israel wants to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

Thanks for posting. .. .

[cardcrimson]

1697424755[/url]']
Judging by our comments, I think emotions are still raw.  There isn't an obviously correct solution here.  But I think the first step toward any correct solution will have to be to address the humanitarian needs of everyone in the region.  And I wish I knew what is real news and what is fake news coming out of the region.  People are willing to hyperescalate based on emotional reactions to explosive or shocking claims, and I don't think it's possible to make sound decisions when people are being triggered by news of questionable veracity.

I appreciate this comment. Modesty is the best policy when it comes to the public commenting on foreign affairs, especially when clouded by the fog of war. I am hopeful, however, that Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Netanyahu, etc., are making decisions based on actual facts. Also, I note that there is no report yet of a ground invasion. I’m dubious that waiting this long would be the optimal military strategy. My inference is that Israel actually is trying to mitigate risk to civilian lives. 

In the bigger picture, I feel something needs to be said. Judaism is a peaceful religion. We say a prayer for peace every time we read from the Torah, which is weekly for me, more frequently for many others. Every time we bless our children, we ask for God to give them peace. Jews do not relish this war. We are terrified of it. I know that Islam is a peaceful religion as well. Many Palestinians want the same thing that Jews want. 

As is obvious from the events of the last 8-9 days, this is a war of Hamas’ choosing. Israel wants to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

Thanks for posting. .. .

[Goose]

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

Unfortunately that is not an option. That is somewhat the approach Israel has already tried. First, a wall does not have a roof. Missiles go up and come down just fine even if fired from behind a wall. Second, no obstacle, no matter how formidable, will not be breached unless it is overwatched and defended. Hamas has shown with their tunnels and other breaching technologies that Israel is unable (as everyone else in the world would be unable) to defend their "obstacle" absolutely. That means Israelis would still die when Hamas finagled their way through, which inevitably some would.    

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

I am virtually certain the US said no such thing. If the US had any intention of "bombing the hell" out of Iran, it would have already done so many times over in the past 30 years. IMO the possibility of congress allowing this type of action is nil. Israel is another matter, and I am sure Iran knows that. However, I would suggest the idea that Iran has "stood down" is very questionable. They certainly don't want to start a war with either Israel or the US, but they are still going to do whatever they can short of that to make this crisis operate to their ends.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

2M more than they have any intention of accepting. Nobody is going to take these refugees because the track record of Palestinian refugees in other countries is uniformly disastrous. Talk to Jordan, Tunisia and Libya (if you can figure out who in Libya to ask). If you get the refugees, you get Hamas with them. On top of that, the Palestinians don't want to go. There are already significant Palestinian refugee communities in many nations. Notice that none of those nations are rushing to accept more.

[Goose]

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

Unfortunately that is not an option. That is somewhat the approach Israel has already tried. First, a wall does not have a roof. Missiles go up and come down just fine even if fired from behind a wall. Second, no obstacle, no matter how formidable, will not be breached unless it is overwatched and defended. Hamas has shown with their tunnels and other breaching technologies that Israel is unable (as everyone else in the world would be unable) to defend their "obstacle" absolutely. That means Israelis would still die when Hamas finagled their way through, which inevitably some would.    

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

I am virtually certain the US said no such thing. If the US had any intention of "bombing the hell" out of Iran, it would have already done so many times over in the past 30 years. IMO the possibility of congress allowing this type of action is nil. Israel is another matter, and I am sure Iran knows that. However, I would suggest the idea that Iran has "stood down" is very questionable. They certainly don't want to start a war with either Israel or the US, but they are still going to do whatever they can short of that to make this crisis operate to their ends.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

2M more than they have any intention of accepting. Nobody is going to take these refugees because the track record of Palestinian refugees in other countries is uniformly disastrous. Talk to Jordan, Tunisia and Libya (if you can figure out who in Libya to ask). If you get the refugees, you get Hamas with them. On top of that, the Palestinians don't want to go. There are already significant Palestinian refugee communities in many nations. Notice that none of those nations are rushing to accept more.

[GK3]

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

Unfortunately that is not an option. That is somewhat the approach Israel has already tried. First, a wall does not have a roof. Missiles go up and come down just fine even if fired from behind a wall. Second, no obstacle, no matter how formidable, will not be breached unless it is overwatched and defended. Hamas has shown with their tunnels and other breaching technologies that Israel is unable (as everyone else in the world would be unable) to defend their "obstacle" absolutely. That means Israelis would still die when Hamas finagled their way through, which inevitably some would.    

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

I am virtually certain the US said no such thing. If the US had any intention of "bombing the hell" out of Iran, it would have already done so many times over in the past 30 years. IMO the possibility of congress allowing this type of action is nil. Israel is another matter, and I am sure Iran knows that. However, I would suggest the idea that Iran has "stood down" is very questionable. They certainly don't want to start a war with either Israel or the US, but they are still going to do whatever they can short of that to make this crisis operate to their ends.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

2M more than they have any intention of accepting. Nobody is going to take these refugees because the track record of Palestinian refugees in other countries is uniformly disastrous. Talk to Jordan, Tunisia and Libya (if you can figure out who in Libya to ask). If you get the refugees, you get Hamas with them. On top of that, the Palestinians don't want to go. There are already significant Palestinian refugee communities in many nations. Notice that none of those nations are rushing to accept more.

Agree 100 percent.  The big problem is that until both parties figure out a way to live and let live this is never going to stop, particularly if the Israeli government continues to kick Palestinians out of the West Bank and seize their land.  This only leads to more disaffection and hate. I see no way how invading Gaza wipes out the Hamas.  I am sure a good number of their fighters will just dress up like refugees and join the stream of people trying to go somewhere.  Is Israel willing to occupy Gaza forever?  From what they say, no.  They leave and Hamas will return.  This appears to be a forever war.  Iran is I am sure quite happy, to stir the pot, provide arms, ammunition and training but stay far enough away to avoid the USA deciding to level Tehran. As long as the government in Tehran is who it is, I see little chance for real peace. How bad will it have to get before the two sides agree to coexist?  Is that even possible?

[GK3]

There are only two solutions here.  First, Israel could build a military grade wall around Gaza and let Hamas rot in its own filth.  That would be really bad for the population who has been horribly served by Hamas.

Unfortunately that is not an option. That is somewhat the approach Israel has already tried. First, a wall does not have a roof. Missiles go up and come down just fine even if fired from behind a wall. Second, no obstacle, no matter how formidable, will not be breached unless it is overwatched and defended. Hamas has shown with their tunnels and other breaching technologies that Israel is unable (as everyone else in the world would be unable) to defend their "obstacle" absolutely. That means Israelis would still die when Hamas finagled their way through, which inevitably some would.    

The other option is to expel Hamas.  To do that you have to go in on the ground.  To do that what we need to do is get the civillians out.  Going door to door will be awful.  Get the civilians out and then lay siege.  Over time you can root Hamas out without having to pay an awful price.

So what should the US do?

We put two carrier groups there.  We tell friendly nations that this shit has to end.  Hamas has to go.  Most of the middle eastern nations hate them anyway so that is fine.  

We have them tell Iran that if they get involved the US and Israel are going to bomb the hell out of you.  Notice how Iran has now stood down.

I am virtually certain the US said no such thing. If the US had any intention of "bombing the hell" out of Iran, it would have already done so many times over in the past 30 years. IMO the possibility of congress allowing this type of action is nil. Israel is another matter, and I am sure Iran knows that. However, I would suggest the idea that Iran has "stood down" is very questionable. They certainly don't want to start a war with either Israel or the US, but they are still going to do whatever they can short of that to make this crisis operate to their ends.

We then tell Abbas that if he wants to remain in power he better come out against Hamas.  He has now done that.

We are probably also telling Hezbolah that if they get involved it is going to be really really ugly.  I don't expect them to.

Now we need to find some place to put the Gaza civillians.  That one is trickier.  But with the current siege it is going to get ugly in there so hopefully most want to leave.  We got to get someone to take them.  Probably smaller groups in lots of countries.  Probably some in the West Bank.    Egypt already has like 9M refugees so whats 2M more?

2M more than they have any intention of accepting. Nobody is going to take these refugees because the track record of Palestinian refugees in other countries is uniformly disastrous. Talk to Jordan, Tunisia and Libya (if you can figure out who in Libya to ask). If you get the refugees, you get Hamas with them. On top of that, the Palestinians don't want to go. There are already significant Palestinian refugee communities in many nations. Notice that none of those nations are rushing to accept more.

Agree 100 percent.  The big problem is that until both parties figure out a way to live and let live this is never going to stop, particularly if the Israeli government continues to kick Palestinians out of the West Bank and seize their land.  This only leads to more disaffection and hate. I see no way how invading Gaza wipes out the Hamas.  I am sure a good number of their fighters will just dress up like refugees and join the stream of people trying to go somewhere.  Is Israel willing to occupy Gaza forever?  From what they say, no.  They leave and Hamas will return.  This appears to be a forever war.  Iran is I am sure quite happy, to stir the pot, provide arms, ammunition and training but stay far enough away to avoid the USA deciding to level Tehran. As long as the government in Tehran is who it is, I see little chance for real peace. How bad will it have to get before the two sides agree to coexist?  Is that even possible?

[OutsiderFan]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

I mean, I too have pretty much the same answer. People far smarter and/or informed than me have tried and failed to resolve this situation for time immemorial. 

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution, but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. I'm sure most Russians don't want Putin and would like free and fair elections. So it seems to me the best solution is to remove all the trouble making autocrats and oppressive regimes who stand in the way of peace. China is its own challenge, but I think it can be contained because it has become so dependent on GDP to placate the masses. It could get in real trouble pissing off the rest of the world.

Iran is interesting to me. I can't quite understand what its motivation is to create chaos with Israel. What does Iran lose if it doesn't have the "Israel is the enemy" foil?  Are its dictators afraid that if Israel isn't a threat, democratic forces will take root and overthrow them?  

I like addressing root causes of problems, not putting bandaids to them. And I don't think democratic countries should tolerate those who threaten and physically harm their neighbors. If they do, the lot of them should be willing to take them out. If we don't, we will always have them creating problems that are costly to deal with in multiple ways. But then if that happens and these threats are eliminated, the military industrial complex will get smaller, and we all know that can't happen. There's a lot of money to be made in death and destruction.

It's also clear that what we have been doing isn't working, so need to try different ideas.

[OutsiderFan]

Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

I mean, I too have pretty much the same answer. People far smarter and/or informed than me have tried and failed to resolve this situation for time immemorial. 

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution, but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. I'm sure most Russians don't want Putin and would like free and fair elections. So it seems to me the best solution is to remove all the trouble making autocrats and oppressive regimes who stand in the way of peace. China is its own challenge, but I think it can be contained because it has become so dependent on GDP to placate the masses. It could get in real trouble pissing off the rest of the world.

Iran is interesting to me. I can't quite understand what its motivation is to create chaos with Israel. What does Iran lose if it doesn't have the "Israel is the enemy" foil?  Are its dictators afraid that if Israel isn't a threat, democratic forces will take root and overthrow them?  

I like addressing root causes of problems, not putting bandaids to them. And I don't think democratic countries should tolerate those who threaten and physically harm their neighbors. If they do, the lot of them should be willing to take them out. If we don't, we will always have them creating problems that are costly to deal with in multiple ways. But then if that happens and these threats are eliminated, the military industrial complex will get smaller, and we all know that can't happen. There's a lot of money to be made in death and destruction.

It's also clear that what we have been doing isn't working, so need to try different ideas.

[lex24]

1697462253[/url]']

1697390949[/url]']

1697383405[/url]']
Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

I mean, I too have pretty much the same answer. People far smarter and/or informed than me have tried and failed to resolve this situation for time immemorial. 

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution, but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. I'm sure most Russians don't want Putin and would like free and fair elections. So it seems to me the best solution is to remove all the trouble making autocrats and oppressive regimes who stand in the way of peace. China is its own challenge, but I think it can be contained because it has become so dependent on GDP to placate the masses. It could get in real trouble pissing off the rest of the world.

Iran is interesting to me. I can't quite understand what its motivation is to create chaos with Israel. What does Iran lose if it doesn't have the "Israel is the enemy" foil?  Are its dictators afraid that if Israel isn't a threat, democratic forces will take root and overthrow them?  

I like addressing root causes of problems, not putting bandaids to them. And I don't think democratic countries should tolerate those who threaten and physically harm their neighbors. If they do, the lot of them should be willing to take them out. If we don't, we will always have them creating problems that are costly to deal with in multiple ways. But then if that happens and these threats are eliminated, the military industrial complex will get smaller, and we all know that can't happen. There's a lot of money to be made in death and destruction.

It's also clear that what we have been doing isn't working, so need to try different ideas.

 How, pray tell, do we (or for that matter any other world actor)  “take out” Putin.  He’s sitting on thousands of nukes. And I don’t even think he smokes cigars. 

You dont think Russia would back Putin to the hilt if he is threatened by outsiders?    Russia has and always will fight to the death for Mother Russia.  And all Russia has ever really known is Czars and autocrats.

[lex24]

1697462253[/url]']

1697390949[/url]']

1697383405[/url]']
Speaking of no-win situations...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/balthazar-...rael-post/

This NY Post story certainly drives home the folly of picking sides, because no matter which one you take, castigation awaits. I've stated I think both sides are terrible, so nobody can accuse me of being pro-either side of this stupidness.

But, I agree with this McNally guy and never would have deleted my post that got such a hostile reaction. When people resort to seemingly dead end acts when they have nothing, it's an indicator of how desperate they are. When people who have reached the point they don't think they have anything to lose so much that they are willing to sacrifice themselves, it's time to listen to them and find out what it will take for them to stop being so desperate, or would have prevented them.

Mary Antoinette stood in her luxurious threads while the masses had nothing, said "let them eat cake." and motivated them to take her head off. Dismissing the most important concerns of others never ends well, especially when those being dismissed have nothing to lose. Those who have something to lose need to at minimum placate those who have nothing or they will have hell visited on them from people willing to give up their own lives to express their dissatisfaction.

It's frankly just as embarrassing to me as a human that so many people don't grasp these realities and insist one side is right, as it is to see the human failure epitomized by the Israel-Palestine conflict in the first place.

Rodney King said it right: "Can we all get along?"

I guess the question I would ask is what exactly do you think Israel should do?

In 2006 they tried to trade land for peace.  They gave Gaza to the Palestinians to self govern.  In return, all they have gotten is rockets and now this awful terror attack.

So in all honesty, what do you think  Israel should do?

FWIW, every time I ask this question I get some version of I don't know.  Maybe something about a two state solution.  But the Palestinians won't accept the 2 state solution.  They have been offered various versions of the two state solution for over 50 years and their answer is always war.

I mean, I too have pretty much the same answer. People far smarter and/or informed than me have tried and failed to resolve this situation for time immemorial. 

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution, but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. I'm sure most Russians don't want Putin and would like free and fair elections. So it seems to me the best solution is to remove all the trouble making autocrats and oppressive regimes who stand in the way of peace. China is its own challenge, but I think it can be contained because it has become so dependent on GDP to placate the masses. It could get in real trouble pissing off the rest of the world.

Iran is interesting to me. I can't quite understand what its motivation is to create chaos with Israel. What does Iran lose if it doesn't have the "Israel is the enemy" foil?  Are its dictators afraid that if Israel isn't a threat, democratic forces will take root and overthrow them?  

I like addressing root causes of problems, not putting bandaids to them. And I don't think democratic countries should tolerate those who threaten and physically harm their neighbors. If they do, the lot of them should be willing to take them out. If we don't, we will always have them creating problems that are costly to deal with in multiple ways. But then if that happens and these threats are eliminated, the military industrial complex will get smaller, and we all know that can't happen. There's a lot of money to be made in death and destruction.

It's also clear that what we have been doing isn't working, so need to try different ideas.

 How, pray tell, do we (or for that matter any other world actor)  “take out” Putin.  He’s sitting on thousands of nukes. And I don’t even think he smokes cigars. 

You dont think Russia would back Putin to the hilt if he is threatened by outsiders?    Russia has and always will fight to the death for Mother Russia.  And all Russia has ever really known is Czars and autocrats.

[OutsiderFan]

How, pray tell, do we (or for that matter any other world actor)  “take out” Putin.  He’s sitting on thousands of nukes. And I don’t even think he smokes cigars. 

You dont think Russia would back Putin to the hilt if he is threatened by outsiders?    Russia has and always will fight to the death for Mother Russia.  And all Russia has ever really known is Czars and autocrats.

When there is a will there is a way. I just don't see the collective will and that disappoints me.

The nuclear canard is a red herring, IMO. Russian leaders know if Russia uses nukes, they will be eliminated. Nobody who subjugates others for their own power is willing to give up their own lives because they are ultimately cowards who can't win in a competition of ideas in a free market.

It's one thing to sacrifice Russian lives sending them on suicide missions in Ukraine to hold on to your power. But it is quite another to risk your own life, and a nuclear war will do that.

All bullies back down when they face enough push back. Putin and certainly the islamist terrorist organizations, maybe even Iran, have not faced enough by enough of a global coalition. That's why we are where we are. 

None of these things are easy, but I don't think we should throw our hands up and say we can't remove problem people from power because it is hard.

[OutsiderFan]

How, pray tell, do we (or for that matter any other world actor)  “take out” Putin.  He’s sitting on thousands of nukes. And I don’t even think he smokes cigars. 

You dont think Russia would back Putin to the hilt if he is threatened by outsiders?    Russia has and always will fight to the death for Mother Russia.  And all Russia has ever really known is Czars and autocrats.

When there is a will there is a way. I just don't see the collective will and that disappoints me.

The nuclear canard is a red herring, IMO. Russian leaders know if Russia uses nukes, they will be eliminated. Nobody who subjugates others for their own power is willing to give up their own lives because they are ultimately cowards who can't win in a competition of ideas in a free market.

It's one thing to sacrifice Russian lives sending them on suicide missions in Ukraine to hold on to your power. But it is quite another to risk your own life, and a nuclear war will do that.

All bullies back down when they face enough push back. Putin and certainly the islamist terrorist organizations, maybe even Iran, have not faced enough by enough of a global coalition. That's why we are where we are. 

None of these things are easy, but I don't think we should throw our hands up and say we can't remove problem people from power because it is hard.

[cardcrimson]

If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Didn't we try that with Saddam Hussein?

[cardcrimson]

If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Didn't we try that with Saddam Hussein?

[Goose]

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Getting "the world" to agree on anything is impossible. Each nation has it's own interests and many of those "interests" create "problems" for the US. Operating as a "world police force" has very definite limitations. Afghanistan is a poster child for this, not just for us but also for Russia and the UK. If you want them to "behave" you are going to have to occupy their country forever. You will lose so many lives and spend so much money that eventually you will give up. Just how it is.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

We "allow" this obviously because the cost in lives and treasure to "correct" this problem is far too great (like nuclear war in the case of Putin). It is important to remember that the US "fixed" the problem in Iran back in 1953. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat
This worked great until it didn't.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution,

Indeed it is hard to imagine, because from our point of view the Palestinians would be much better off materially if they developed their own state. However, the Palestinians didn't want that in 1948 and at least "enough" of them don't want it now to make it possible. If a two-state solution was acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians we would have it today. It isn't, and it is unlikely to be anytime "soon". If anything, the last 75 years clearly demonstrate that is the case.

but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. 

Well, the issue existed well before Hamas did. The PLO had a two-state solution in it's hands and rejected it. Hamas is possible because many Palestinians simply won't admit they "lost" and the concept is anathema to many of them.  Yes, Hamas and other actors take advantage of this belief and attempt to perpetuate it via propaganda, religion, and coercion when necessary, but they are planting seeds in fertile ground. It was always theorized that the PLO rejected the two-state solution because it would eventually led to the end of the PLO. That may be true, but there was no outcry from the Palestinian people against the PLO at that time.

[Goose]

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Getting "the world" to agree on anything is impossible. Each nation has it's own interests and many of those "interests" create "problems" for the US. Operating as a "world police force" has very definite limitations. Afghanistan is a poster child for this, not just for us but also for Russia and the UK. If you want them to "behave" you are going to have to occupy their country forever. You will lose so many lives and spend so much money that eventually you will give up. Just how it is.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

We "allow" this obviously because the cost in lives and treasure to "correct" this problem is far too great (like nuclear war in the case of Putin). It is important to remember that the US "fixed" the problem in Iran back in 1953. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat
This worked great until it didn't.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution,

Indeed it is hard to imagine, because from our point of view the Palestinians would be much better off materially if they developed their own state. However, the Palestinians didn't want that in 1948 and at least "enough" of them don't want it now to make it possible. If a two-state solution was acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians we would have it today. It isn't, and it is unlikely to be anytime "soon". If anything, the last 75 years clearly demonstrate that is the case.

but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. 

Well, the issue existed well before Hamas did. The PLO had a two-state solution in it's hands and rejected it. Hamas is possible because many Palestinians simply won't admit they "lost" and the concept is anathema to many of them.  Yes, Hamas and other actors take advantage of this belief and attempt to perpetuate it via propaganda, religion, and coercion when necessary, but they are planting seeds in fertile ground. It was always theorized that the PLO rejected the two-state solution because it would eventually led to the end of the PLO. That may be true, but there was no outcry from the Palestinian people against the PLO at that time.

[GK3]

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Getting "the world" to agree on anything is impossible. Each nation has it's own interests and many of those "interests" create "problems" for the US. Operating as a "world police force" has very definite limitations. Afghanistan is a poster child for this, not just for us but also for Russia and the UK. If you want them to "behave" you are going to have to occupy their country forever. You will lose so many lives and spend so much money that eventually you will give up. Just how it is.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

We "allow" this obviously because the cost in lives and treasure to "correct" this problem is far too great (like nuclear war in the case of Putin). It is important to remember that the US "fixed" the problem in Iran back in 1953. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat
This worked great until it didn't.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution,

Indeed it is hard to imagine, because from our point of view the Palestinians would be much better off materially if they developed their own state. However, the Palestinians didn't want that in 1948 and at least "enough" of them don't want it now to make it possible. If a two-state solution was acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians we would have it today. It isn't, and it is unlikely to be anytime "soon". If anything, the last 75 years clearly demonstrate that is the case.

but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. 

Well, the issue existed well before Hamas did. The PLO had a two-state solution in it's hands and rejected it. Hamas is possible because many Palestinians simply won't admit they "lost" and the concept is anathema to many of them.  Yes, Hamas and other actors take advantage of this belief and attempt to perpetuate it via propaganda, religion, and coercion when necessary, but they are planting seeds in fertile ground. It was always theorized that the PLO rejected the two-state solution because it would eventually led to the end of the PLO. That may be true, but there was no outcry from the Palestinian people against the PLO at that time.

I was remiss in my earlier posts, Palestine has had its chances at its own state, but it appears the "my way or the highway" approach of its leaders has prevented this from ever being given a chance.  Who knows if it will ever happen.  
Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.  How many billions have we spent and how many lives have we given to try and change things and where are we now?

[GK3]

We have this very odd way of finding the behavior of people abhorrent but still allowing them to do abhorrent things under the guise of allowing them to make their own choices, no matter how many problems they create. If it were up to me, the world would unite to take out the likes of Putin. It would agree that Hamas should be eradicated and eradicate them.

Getting "the world" to agree on anything is impossible. Each nation has it's own interests and many of those "interests" create "problems" for the US. Operating as a "world police force" has very definite limitations. Afghanistan is a poster child for this, not just for us but also for Russia and the UK. If you want them to "behave" you are going to have to occupy their country forever. You will lose so many lives and spend so much money that eventually you will give up. Just how it is.

Hamas is to Palestinians as Putin is to Russians. Bullies with their own agendas subjugating their people, to kill, destroy, and cause problems for the rest of the world, in the name of keeping their own power. I just don't understand how we allow this.

We "allow" this obviously because the cost in lives and treasure to "correct" this problem is far too great (like nuclear war in the case of Putin). It is important to remember that the US "fixed" the problem in Iran back in 1953. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat
This worked great until it didn't.

It's hard to imagine most Palestinians wouldn't want peace and the two state solution,

Indeed it is hard to imagine, because from our point of view the Palestinians would be much better off materially if they developed their own state. However, the Palestinians didn't want that in 1948 and at least "enough" of them don't want it now to make it possible. If a two-state solution was acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians we would have it today. It isn't, and it is unlikely to be anytime "soon". If anything, the last 75 years clearly demonstrate that is the case.

but as long as Hamas and I guess Hezbollah are allowed to exist, it can't happen. 

Well, the issue existed well before Hamas did. The PLO had a two-state solution in it's hands and rejected it. Hamas is possible because many Palestinians simply won't admit they "lost" and the concept is anathema to many of them.  Yes, Hamas and other actors take advantage of this belief and attempt to perpetuate it via propaganda, religion, and coercion when necessary, but they are planting seeds in fertile ground. It was always theorized that the PLO rejected the two-state solution because it would eventually led to the end of the PLO. That may be true, but there was no outcry from the Palestinian people against the PLO at that time.

I was remiss in my earlier posts, Palestine has had its chances at its own state, but it appears the "my way or the highway" approach of its leaders has prevented this from ever being given a chance.  Who knows if it will ever happen.  
Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.  How many billions have we spent and how many lives have we given to try and change things and where are we now?

[Goose]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

[Goose]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

[TrumpCard]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.

[TrumpCard]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.

[GK3]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.

I did not mean to imply that that foreign policy wise we should not intervene in the so-called Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.  But when that intervention becomes a military intervention we need to have plans that consider the likely results and plans for how to proceed if that intervention fails.  Other than no more Saddam what else did we gain from our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? The complexities of the so-called Middle East are so great I am not sure anyone has a decent handle on how any option or group of options would play out.  Politics and Religion are a dangerous mixture. Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Morocco are probably the most sane of the countries in that area. It was also before Iran was quite as much of a player as it is now. No matter how well those interventions worked out, there is no peace.

[GK3]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.

I did not mean to imply that that foreign policy wise we should not intervene in the so-called Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.  But when that intervention becomes a military intervention we need to have plans that consider the likely results and plans for how to proceed if that intervention fails.  Other than no more Saddam what else did we gain from our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? The complexities of the so-called Middle East are so great I am not sure anyone has a decent handle on how any option or group of options would play out.  Politics and Religion are a dangerous mixture. Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Morocco are probably the most sane of the countries in that area. It was also before Iran was quite as much of a player as it is now. No matter how well those interventions worked out, there is no peace.

[TrumpCard]

Some might call this article wholly speculative, and it is. Nevertheless, I would call it appropriate modesty in trying to make inferences about Israel's decision making calculus.  

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defens...cle-768684

[TrumpCard]

Some might call this article wholly speculative, and it is. Nevertheless, I would call it appropriate modesty in trying to make inferences about Israel's decision making calculus.  

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defens...cle-768684

[TrumpCard]

Biden is planning to visit Israel on Wednesday and then visit Jordan (to meet with the leaders of the PA, Egypt, and Jordan).  
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/inte...visit.html

My instinct says Biden would want to go into this meeting with some confidence that he'll be able to announce humanitarian aid or safe zones or hostage releases or some other progress.  Or at least not at a moment when the hostilities are dramatically escalating.  Do any of you also infer that Biden believes that a ground invasion won't start at least until after he leaves and that there may be humanitarian progress between now and Thursday?

[TrumpCard]

Biden is planning to visit Israel on Wednesday and then visit Jordan (to meet with the leaders of the PA, Egypt, and Jordan).  
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/inte...visit.html

My instinct says Biden would want to go into this meeting with some confidence that he'll be able to announce humanitarian aid or safe zones or hostage releases or some other progress.  Or at least not at a moment when the hostilities are dramatically escalating.  Do any of you also infer that Biden believes that a ground invasion won't start at least until after he leaves and that there may be humanitarian progress between now and Thursday?