4 ms·

You must've missed the fact that Biden has been pushing for deescalation for ages.

peacechance 2y ago
[flagged]
JohnMakin 2y ago
No, I didn't miss that, nor did I miss the millions of dollars of weapons this administration has also sent, nor the warships and troops - that doesn't seem very "de-escalate"y to me, personally, but maybe I'm nuts.
- legitster 2y ago
  > nor the warships and troops I am not sure what you are implying - the US parking warships nearby seems like a strong deterrent. It didn't work this time, but it didn't mean it's a bad idea.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    Deliberate misunderstandings or just a general incomprehension of how deterrence works. You use deterrence to prevent a bigger conflict. It's on Israel and its leadership (Bibi) that they used the lull between their increasingly brazen attacks against their opponents as an excuse to launch a full scale invasion of a neighbouring country.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Israel didn't start many conflicts, I have none in my head. This of course was also caused by an attack by Hamas and Hezbollah, which lead us to today.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        '56, '67 and '82 were all clearly initiated by Israel. That's half of their top 6, actually.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        [flagged]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        I'm fully aware of the background. You're confusing the official spin on events with the basic, kinetic nature of the events themselves. A pre-emptive strike is still, by definition, initiated by the country taking that action.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A conflict in these cases started before the first shot was fired, hence your take is just wrong.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
        deleted 2y ago
10xDev 2y ago
[flagged]

[flagged]

No, I didn't miss that, nor did I miss the millions of dollars of weapons this administration has also sent, nor the warships and troops - that doesn't seem very "de-escalate"y to me, personally, but maybe I'm nuts.

legitster 2y ago
> nor the warships and troops I am not sure what you are implying - the US parking warships nearby seems like a strong deterrent. It didn't work this time, but it didn't mean it's a bad idea.
- kranke155 2y ago
  Deliberate misunderstandings or just a general incomprehension of how deterrence works. You use deterrence to prevent a bigger conflict. It's on Israel and its leadership (Bibi) that they used the lull between their increasingly brazen attacks against their opponents as an excuse to launch a full scale invasion of a neighbouring country.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Israel didn't start many conflicts, I have none in my head. This of course was also caused by an attack by Hamas and Hezbollah, which lead us to today.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      '56, '67 and '82 were all clearly initiated by Israel. That's half of their top 6, actually.
      - fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        [flagged]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        I'm fully aware of the background. You're confusing the official spin on events with the basic, kinetic nature of the events themselves. A pre-emptive strike is still, by definition, initiated by the country taking that action.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A conflict in these cases started before the first shot was fired, hence your take is just wrong.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
        fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
        The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
        deleted 2y ago

10xDev 2y ago

[flagged]