4 ms·

Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness. The rebels behind the attack claimed only to have attacked two Israeli vessels but did not claim (possibly did

Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness. The rebels behind the attack claimed only to have attacked two Israeli vessels but did not claim (possibly did not know) an intended attack against the US ship. Retaliating in this case would definitely escalate the fight, there are many good reasons to avoid doing that.

newsclues 3y ago
If showing restraint leads to repeated attacks, it's weakness. This has been going on and escalating in the region for years, including the attacks on Americans in Iraq and Syria. It's not just "rebels" it's groups sponsored by Iran, which is a formidable foe, but clearly restraint is just passive permission to carry on. As someone that would have deployed to region, maybe I tolerate leadership weakness less than people who would be sitting comfortably at home.
- feedforward 3y ago
  Well the US Navy has already been attacking pirates there, in addition to weapons and military advisors to the Ukraine, patrols in the South China Sea and paying for (for the first time since Nixon visited China) weapons to Taiwan, plus occupation costs in Guantanamo Bay against the Cuban government's wishes, troops stationed on the North Korean border, naval patrols off the Venezuelan coast as New sanctions are considered, and the navy also sending more ships to the Persian gulf recently - there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex in pursuit of US worldwide imperial goals. Of course they monetarily benefit from.this (as you yourself said you do). Myself I would rather the money go to fix bridges and schools in the US than bomb Gazan children etc.
  - newsclues 3y ago
    "there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex" I didn't say that. It doesn't cost anything for the Commander in Chief to authorize the troops to defend themselves. The weapons are already bought and paid for. Pretty dishonest to put words in peoples mouths.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sampo 3y ago
> Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness. But that is how those people read it, nevertheless.

newsclues 3y ago

If showing restraint leads to repeated attacks, it's weakness. This has been going on and escalating in the region for years, including the attacks on Americans in Iraq and Syria. It's not just "rebels" it's groups sponsored by Iran, which is a formidable foe, but clearly restraint is just passive permission to carry on. As someone that would have deployed to region, maybe I tolerate leadership weakness less than people who would be sitting comfortably at home.

feedforward 3y ago
Well the US Navy has already been attacking pirates there, in addition to weapons and military advisors to the Ukraine, patrols in the South China Sea and paying for (for the first time since Nixon visited China) weapons to Taiwan, plus occupation costs in Guantanamo Bay against the Cuban government's wishes, troops stationed on the North Korean border, naval patrols off the Venezuelan coast as New sanctions are considered, and the navy also sending more ships to the Persian gulf recently - there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex in pursuit of US worldwide imperial goals. Of course they monetarily benefit from.this (as you yourself said you do). Myself I would rather the money go to fix bridges and schools in the US than bomb Gazan children etc.
- newsclues 3y ago
  "there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex" I didn't say that. It doesn't cost anything for the Commander in Chief to authorize the troops to defend themselves. The weapons are already bought and paid for. Pretty dishonest to put words in peoples mouths.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sampo 3y ago

> Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness. But that is how those people read it, nevertheless.