Hitler didn't really want to exterminate the Jews or that thread that you need to read before you report it

[CaptainGemini]

Why would there need to be military conflict with economic sanctions? Was there military conflict when sanctions were put on Iran recently? Or Russia? South Africa under Apartheid?

When I talk about economic sanctions is like restricting the flow of capital in and out of Israel. No need for soldiers.

Let's take a look at those nations.

Iran- Not at war at the time, like Israel is.

Russia- Latest set failed. Not successfully enforced, due to several issues with enforcement. Russia has also began to expand its military operations to further areas, including test flights over nations it is currently not in conflict with.

South Africa under Apartheid- Not at war at the time, like Israel is.

Let's look at examples like Israel would be and Russia was:

Japan- Failed. Responded by attacking the United States, ultimately ending in the first weaponized use of nuclear technology.

North Korea- Failed. Enforcement has involved several border skirmishes and an ongoing demilitarized zone. War has almost restarted several times, remains a constant threat.

Iraq- Failed. Enforcement began with a war, involved several military skirmishes, and eventually ended with the U.S. getting tired of the situation and just invading the place. Conflict, and descended conflicts, still ongoing.

Afghanistan- Failed, responded with two attacks on the World Trade Center (one basement, one involving planes). Before that, several military skirmishes, and the wars (yes, that is intended to be plural) that the attacks spawned and their descendant conflicts are all still ongoing.

Palestinians- Failed. Conflict, and lessened version of economy, continued anyway. Skirmishes with those enforcing the conflict. Responses have been primarily aimed as retaliations against Israel.

Beginning to see a pattern here? That the only one of those where the nation was already in conflict in some way that didn't go badly was one where no one realistically had the military might to fully enforce the sanctions anyway (Russia). Top it all off, we've already tried to end this conflict once with sanctions and they didn't even slow it down.

 

[Kramodlog]

Iran- Not at war at the time, like Israel is.

So what? Israel isn't at war with the US, France and the UK. Those are some of the countries who's economic sanctions would affect Israel the most. Are you really saying Israel will send soldiers to France or nuke the UK because capital flow in and out of Israel has been restricted?

Are you really saying Israel would declare war to the US and nuke it?

 

[CaptainGemini]

So what? Israel isn't at war with the US, France and the UK. Those are some of the countries who's economic sanctions would affect Israel the most. Are you really saying Israel will send soldiers to France or nuke the UK because capital flow in and out of Israel has been restricted?

Are you really saying Israel would declare war to the US and nuke it?

It wouldn't be the first time Israeli military forces had attacked U.S. military forces. And Netanyu has been building up some anti-American sentiments ever since that deal with Iran. From their standpoint, the U.S. is no longer a steadfast ally, while Britain never has been and France is a potential enemy given some of its sentiments about sanctioning Israel.

The question you shouldn't be asking is if they will. After all, those nations I listed in my previous post as like Russia and Israel were almost all, prior to conflict with the U.S., allies with it in some aspect. The only one that wasn't is North Korea. And every single one of them, despite being strong allies to the point that turning on the U.S. ruined their economy, found reason to come to conflict with the U.S.

Of course, an important consideration in all of this is that the U.S. likes to try to rebuild nations it beats the everloving crap out of. After all, we learned from what happened with Germany. That's why we didn't repeat it with Japan and tried not to repeat it with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The question you should be asking is this: Once trade sanctions are in place and everything starts to go to hell, what do the Israelis have to lose?

 

[Kramodlog]

In other words yes, Israel would attack the US. No point in continuing this ridiculus discussion.

 

[CaptainGemini]

In other words yes, Israel would attack the US. No point in continuing this ridiculus discussion.

The funny part is, Netanyahu has pretty much openly said that Israel is willing to fight. His exact words:

"The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies— those days are over."

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Po...elivers-address-to-UN-General-Assembly-419606

I would give that a full read, given it's related to what started this topic. Overall, he has made it clear he's not approving of what the U.S. is doing and thinks the UN is out to get Israel. And is indirectly threatening military action against any power he perceives as a threat to Israel.

So, really, this is about as ridiculous as a nation having the guts to attack a U.S. naval base directly with fleet at port. Or choosing to retake a land by attacking the most heavily fortified beach access there is.

We've seen this kind of rhetoric from leaders before where it comes from the U.S. Isn't it interesting how some of what Netanyahu says has, in the past, been said by America's enemies?

Edit: I will go ahead and say this. Plenty of people said the idea of Japan attacking the U.S. over an oil shortage is ridiculous. Some of those people lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. Just like some of the people who said using airplanes to take down the Twin Towers is ridiculous lost their lives during 9/11. That you call this conversation ridiculous reveals you have not learned from history. America has a long, long history of the ridiculous when it comes to things like this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree.
Well, I'll be honest, I don't know you from a can of paint. For all I know, you could have had bad intentions and wanted to suggest something without openly saying it. That's what happens when you aren't clear. If what I interpreted from your post was incorrect, please, clear things up. You can easily explain what you meant.

See. now I feel bad. You said in the other thread that you always think good of others, so this must be personal, because if I was a random person, you'd think well of me to start.

Also, I'm sorry that you seemed to have missed where I did try to clarify what I meant directly to Umbran a few posts before this one that I'm responding to. As I don't wish to be rude and tell you that it's just up the thread, I'll quote it for you so as to not cause you to feel poorly for having missed it:

So, yes, it's implicit that Bibi was illustrating that Haj was as bad as Hitler.

You may need the context of the previous posts to follow it, but I'll leave that up to you. You seem like a nice and smart guy.

 

[Kaodi]

Even if one believes that what is currently happening is mostly the fault of Palestinian incitement based on false reports of Israel actions on the Temple Mount, one should be able to say that this speech by Netanyahu is a contender for the most dangerous thing ever said by an Israeli Prime Minister. The list of things that one might need to justify by painting ones enemies as the "real" reason behind the Shoah is extremely small and extremely frightening.

That said, when someone in this thread has already claimed that "both sides are as bad as the Nazis" it is probably just time to close the whole thing down.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

See. now I feel bad. You said in the other thread that you always think good of others, so this must be personal, because if I was a random person, you'd think well of me to start.

I did, but that doesn't mean that just because I think you're a nice person, I don't believe you can't be a jerk at times. I took your post at face value. Unfortunately since you weren't clear in your post, assumptions had to be made, and using the information of your post, your message didn't appear to be a good one. We had a fairly long conversation about being clear.

Also, I'm sorry that you seemed to have missed where I did try to clarify what I meant directly to Umbran a few posts before this one that I'm responding to. As I don't wish to be rude and tell you that it's just up the thread, I'll quote it for you so as to not cause you to feel poorly for having missed it:



You may need the context of the previous posts to follow it, but I'll leave that up to you. You seem like a nice and smart guy.

Yeah, being snarky and condescending isn't productive. If you'd like to continue this, you can re-state your post without the snark and condescension.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I did, but that doesn't mean that just because I think you're a nice person, I don't believe you can't be a jerk at times. I took your post at face value. Unfortunately since you weren't clear in your post, assumptions had to be made, and using the information of your post, your message didn't appear to be a good one. We had a fairly long conversation about being clear.

Yeah, being snarky and condescending isn't productive. If you'd like to continue this, you can re-state your post without the snark and condescension.

Oh, the irony. You've been pretty condescending to me, across multiple threads, and you throw the 'you're being too snarky for me' card? S'ok, I'm actually quite fine not continuing this.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Oh, the irony. You've been pretty condescending to me, across multiple threads, and you throw the 'you're being too snarky for me' card?

If you feel I'm being condescending to you, I apologize. That was not my intent. Next time you feel that I have been condescending to you, please, point it out.

S'ok, I'm actually quite fine not continuing this.

I hope you have a good evening.