3 ms·
Ah come on when has Israel last employed force offensively, not defensively? As in first strike (not a retaliatory counter-strike) motivated mainly by economics
by tomp 8y ago
Ah come on when has Israel last employed force offensively, not defensively? As in first strike (not a retaliatory counter-strike) motivated mainly by economics/politics, not safety (e.g. like US war in Iraq or UK attacks on Syria or Russian occupation of Crimea although even then you could argue they were just defending their base but Israel's are milder than even that, such as destroying rocket/nuclear facilities in Syria and Iran).
- toyg 8y agoAlmost nobody engages in “offensive” wars since the Nazis, it’s always some sort of “defensive” or “retaliatory” action.
- Udik 8y agoSorry to correct you, the Nazis claimed they were "defending" themselves from the Jewish threat. So no exception even for them.
- jacquesm 8y agoYou must have missed the 'lebensraum' bit.
- Udik 8y agoTrue, I was focusing on the Jewish persecution. However, even the lebensraum concept has undertones of defense against a threat rather than pure conquest: the term itself refers to space as a necessity for life rather than the object of simple greed. The lebensraum was considered by Nazi ideology "necessary for the survival" of the German race, against the threat of "inferior and decaying races". As far as I can understand it, the whole Nazi ideology is informed by a vision of history as a zero sum game and by a "triumph or perish" attitude- so that every aggression can be justified as a necessary and ultimately defensive move.
- jacquesm 8y agoWe used to have War departments. Now we have defense departments. It's a giant white-wash. If it really was defense then nobody would ever cross their borders in a uniform.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 8y agoIsrael is operating its warplanes in Syria today. I would dare say that combat air missions in a country that is not trying to invade you, and that did not invite you, constitutes "employed force offensively".