|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
My overall point is that Trump is more of a war hawk than Harris and this can scare Hamas and the Israelis to the negotiation table.
Hamas has already made good moves in that direction.
This is good news.
Throughout the entire 1980 campaign all Reagan did was talk about increasing military spending and cutting taxes.
Reagan would not comment directly on the hostage situation so as not to endanger their lives.
Source:October 30 1980 Cleveland Presidential Debate. Carter v. Reagan.
Barbara Walters asked... Both Carter and Reagan refused to directly discuss their exact plans.
Months earlier Carter approved a plan for a surprise mission that failed and resulted in the death of US military personnel.
If you think Reagan was afraid of getting the US military involved in the Hostage Crisis... You gotta be outta your mind.
Republicans are always more willing to go to war than Democrats. Reagan was a war hawk Republican.
How old were you in 1980 and how long have you lived in the USA? It seems you are more of a Google historian.
|
Northern Ireland23325 Posts
They’re not really all that comparable scenarios. The US has a very different set of incentives when its citizens are the hostages, than in a scenario like we’re facing now.
The scenario we’re facing now is a US ally and what it’s looking to do and what its immediate neighbours are looking to do.
Groundwork was laid prior but ok, Reagan pulled the trigger, fair enough. But nothing escalated beyond the hostage scenario.
In our current scenario we’ve still got many hostages held despite Israel trying strong arm tactics and killing 10s of thousands
Outside of hostages being something of a factor in both, I don’t think they’re all that comparable
|
On November 10 2024 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
My overall point is that Trump is more of a war hawk than Harris and this can scare Hamas and the Israelis to the negotiation table.
Hamas has already made good moves in that direction. Your ignoring an incredibly important factor.
Ending this war is not up to Hamas, it never was.
Only Israel can end it and Netanyahu doesn't give a shit about getting the hostages back. In fact he has sabotaged the efforts by the negotiation team to get them home.
He wants a war, and unless Trump suddenly decided to break the US alliance with Israel there is nothing he can do to stop it.
|
On November 10 2024 00:38 WombaT wrote:
Groundwork was laid prior but ok, Reagan pulled the trigger, fair enough. But nothing escalated beyond the hostage scenario.
The real negotiating started once the terrorists were afraid of what the Reagan Warhawk Republicans would do.
Trump's win gives Hamas a way to negotiate without appearing weak. Hamas has taken the correct first step.
The release of the hostages moments after Reagan's inauguration was a last day fuck you to the Carter regime for backing the shah along with a hint of fear of Reagan.
In conclusion, I am optimistic Trump , Hamas, and the Israelis with put together a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, I think Trump will broker a deal. He is already impacting the crisis.
|
On November 10 2024 00:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
My overall point is that Trump is more of a war hawk than Harris and this can scare Hamas and the Israelis to the negotiation table.
Hamas has already made good moves in that direction. Your ignoring an incredibly important factor. Ending this war is not up to Hamas, it never was. Only Israel can end it and Netanyahu doesn't give a shit about getting the hostages back. In fact he has sabotaged the efforts by the negotiation team to get them home. He wants a war, and unless Trump suddenly decided to break the US alliance with Israel there is nothing he can do to stop it.
Maybe someone tells Trump there are still US citizens being held over there and tells him he'd be a hero if he got them back when Biden couldn't. He could promise Netanyahu the world so long as Netanyahu gets them out. Best case Netanyahu has a 50% chance Trump bothers to actually pay out.
Trump's not a big fan of people who get captured though.
|
On November 10 2024 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:My overall point is that Trump is more of a war hawk than Harris and this can scare Hamas and the Israelis to the negotiation table. Hamas has already made good moves in that direction. This is good news. Throughout the entire 1980 campaign all Reagan did was talk about increasing military spending and cutting taxes. Reagan would not comment directly on the hostage situation so as not to endanger their lives. Source:October 30 1980 Cleveland Presidential Debate. Carter v. Reagan. Barbara Walters asked... Both Carter and Reagan refused to directly discuss their exact plans. Months earlier Carter approved a plan for a surprise mission that failed and resulted in the death of US military personnel. If you think Reagan was afraid of getting the US military involved in the Hostage Crisis... You gotta be outta your mind. Republicans are always more willing to go to war than Democrats. Reagan was a war hawk Republican. How old were you in 1980 and how long have you lived in the USA? It seems you are more of a Google historian.
I didn't say Reagan was afraid. Attributing success wholesale to Reagan is completely wrong, that's what I'm arguing. It can reasonably be described as a good cop bad cop situation that worked out in the hostages' favor. Carter's administration did a huge amount of the work and Reagan may've played his own role as the looming threat next to Carter. That's a possible interpretation.
Also, calling me a google historian is hilarious. Try attacking the argument, not the person. I'm referencing Vox. What is your reference? Alex Jones?
|
Here is an example of what a hawk Reagan was.
There was no evidence Libya bombed a West Berlin disco that killed 2 USA soldiers. Reagan's response was Operation El Dorado Canyon. He used this event as a pretext for trying to kill libya's leader and destroy some military bases.
Iran would not exist right now if those hostages were remained in Iran on January 21, 1981.
Back to the topic: the Democrats have a 4 or 5 week window to get a deal done and end this Gaza conflict. If a deal happens near Trump's inauguration he will be able to take credit for it.
|
Northern Ireland23325 Posts
On November 10 2024 00:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 00:38 WombaT wrote:
Groundwork was laid prior but ok, Reagan pulled the trigger, fair enough. But nothing escalated beyond the hostage scenario. The real negotiating started once the terrorists were afraid of what the Reagan Warhawk Republicans would do. Trump's win gives Hamas a way to negotiate without appearing weak. Hamas has taken the correct first step. The release of the hostages moments after Reagan's inauguration was a last day fuck you to the Carter regime for backing the shah along with a hint of fear of Reagan. In conclusion, I am optimistic Trump , Hamas, and the Israelis with put together a deal.
Why are you optimistic about that?
What are the mechanisms at play here?
With a more avowedly pro-Israel President and an Israel emboldened by that, if there is a deal you may just officially call it the ‘Fuck Palestine Accords’ and be done with it.
I’m not seeing many pointers to the contrary. I mean yeah he might get a deal but that isn’t necessarily going to land with many
|
On November 10 2024 01:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 00:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 10 2024 00:38 WombaT wrote:
Groundwork was laid prior but ok, Reagan pulled the trigger, fair enough. But nothing escalated beyond the hostage scenario. The real negotiating started once the terrorists were afraid of what the Reagan Warhawk Republicans would do. Trump's win gives Hamas a way to negotiate without appearing weak. Hamas has taken the correct first step. The release of the hostages moments after Reagan's inauguration was a last day fuck you to the Carter regime for backing the shah along with a hint of fear of Reagan. In conclusion, I am optimistic Trump , Hamas, and the Israelis with put together a deal. Why are you optimistic about that? What are the mechanisms at play here? With a more avowedly pro-Israel President and an Israel emboldened by that, if there is a deal you may just officially call it the ‘Fuck Palestine Accords’ and be done with it. I’m not seeing many pointers to the contrary. I mean yeah he might get a deal but that isn’t necessarily going to land with many
I have already explained why. Check my previous posts about. Hamas' actions and my Reuters article source.
|
On November 10 2024 00:58 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:My overall point is that Trump is more of a war hawk than Harris and this can scare Hamas and the Israelis to the negotiation table. Hamas has already made good moves in that direction. This is good news. Throughout the entire 1980 campaign all Reagan did was talk about increasing military spending and cutting taxes. Reagan would not comment directly on the hostage situation so as not to endanger their lives. Source:October 30 1980 Cleveland Presidential Debate. Carter v. Reagan. Barbara Walters asked... Both Carter and Reagan refused to directly discuss their exact plans. Months earlier Carter approved a plan for a surprise mission that failed and resulted in the death of US military personnel. If you think Reagan was afraid of getting the US military involved in the Hostage Crisis... You gotta be outta your mind. Republicans are always more willing to go to war than Democrats. Reagan was a war hawk Republican. How old were you in 1980 and how long have you lived in the USA? It seems you are more of a Google historian. I didn't say Reagan was afraid. Attributing success wholesale to Reagan is completely wrong, that's what I'm arguing. It can reasonably be described as a good cop bad cop situation that worked out in the hostages' favor. Carter's administration did a huge amount of the work and Reagan may've played his own role as the looming threat next to Carter. That's a possible interpretation. Also, calling me a google historian is hilarious. Try attacking the argument, not the person. I'm referencing Vox. What is your reference? Alex Jones?
I've provided multiple references. You do not know who Barbara Walters is? You are not familiar with the October 30th Reagan/Carter debate in Cleveland?
Reagan was a Warhawk Republican. That is not an Alex jones theory. That is an historical fact.
|
On November 10 2024 01:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Here is an example of what a hawk Reagan was.
There was no evidence Libya bombed a West Berlin disco that killed 2 USA soldiers. Reagan's response was Operation El Dorado Canyon. He used this event as a pretext for trying to kill libya's leader and destroy some military bases.
Iran would not exist right now if those hostages were remained in Iran on January 21, 1981.
Back to the topic: the Democrats have a 4 or 5 week window to get a deal done and end this Gaza conflict. If a deal happens near Trump's inauguration he will be able to take credit for it.
Nobody's disputing Reagan's hawkish stance. I'm explaining that being a warhawk is not the end-all be-all to a hostage deal. It can be one of several factors that may help, but the tremendous effort of negotiations is absolutely essential. The reality is that Trump is a simple minded buffoon working on a single braincell, and threats alone won't do anything.
|
On November 10 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 01:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Here is an example of what a hawk Reagan was.
There was no evidence Libya bombed a West Berlin disco that killed 2 USA soldiers. Reagan's response was Operation El Dorado Canyon. He used this event as a pretext for trying to kill libya's leader and destroy some military bases.
Iran would not exist right now if those hostages were remained in Iran on January 21, 1981.
Back to the topic: the Democrats have a 4 or 5 week window to get a deal done and end this Gaza conflict. If a deal happens near Trump's inauguration he will be able to take credit for it. Nobody's disputing Reagan's hawkish stance. I'm explaining that being a warhawk is not the end-all be-all to a hostage deal. It can be one of several factors that may help, but the tremendous effort of negotiations is absolutely essential. The reality is that Trump is a simple minded buffoon working on a single braincell, and threats alone won't do anything.
Good. We are almost there. The 'crazy , psycho' terrorists correctly feared Reagan and started being diplomatic as soon as they knew the deadline was January 20.
|
On November 10 2024 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2024 01:29 Magic Powers wrote:On November 10 2024 01:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Here is an example of what a hawk Reagan was.
There was no evidence Libya bombed a West Berlin disco that killed 2 USA soldiers. Reagan's response was Operation El Dorado Canyon. He used this event as a pretext for trying to kill libya's leader and destroy some military bases.
Iran would not exist right now if those hostages were remained in Iran on January 21, 1981.
Back to the topic: the Democrats have a 4 or 5 week window to get a deal done and end this Gaza conflict. If a deal happens near Trump's inauguration he will be able to take credit for it. Nobody's disputing Reagan's hawkish stance. I'm explaining that being a warhawk is not the end-all be-all to a hostage deal. It can be one of several factors that may help, but the tremendous effort of negotiations is absolutely essential. The reality is that Trump is a simple minded buffoon working on a single braincell, and threats alone won't do anything. Good. We are almost there. The 'crazy , psycho' terrorists correctly feared Reagan and started being diplomatic as soon as they knew the deadline was January 20.
Dude, the Vox article itself supports the argument that Reagan may've had a hand in it as he played the bad cop role. I was ALREADY on board with the idea right from the start, it's you who's not coming around.
|
I am also confused how this stops the war. Hamas is already about as eradicated as they can reasonably be. The hostage return isn't because Hamas is being difficult. It's because Netanyahu doesn't give a shit about them. I'd go so far as to say that if Hamas offered their unconditional surrender and the return of all the hostages tomorrow, Netanyahu would say no. He doesn't want to stop the war. He doesn't want to pull the IDF out of Gaza and he doesn't want to stop hostilities with Hezbollah. He knows that the minute that would happen is the minute his political career is over, and with that the legal troubles return.
He has jumped into bed with the far right who also don't want the war to end, because they want to colonize Gaza in the same way they're colonizing the West Bank. The only way Trump might get shit done is by threatening his buddy Netanyahu with ceasing all support. And Trump is definitely not doing that, despite his isolationist approach to foreign policy.
|
Northern Ireland23325 Posts
On November 10 2024 02:48 Acrofales wrote:
I am also confused how this stops the war. Hamas is already about as eradicated as they can reasonably be. The hostage return isn't because Hamas is being difficult. It's because Netanyahu doesn't give a shit about them. I'd go so far as to say that if Hamas offered their unconditional surrender and the return of all the hostages tomorrow, Netanyahu would say no. He doesn't want to stop the war. He doesn't want to pull the IDF out of Gaza and he doesn't want to stop hostilities with Hezbollah. He knows that the minute that would happen is the minute his political career is over, and with that the legal troubles return.
He has jumped into bed with the far right who also don't want the war to end, because they want to colonize Gaza in the same way they're colonizing the West Bank. The only way Trump might get shit done is by threatening his buddy Netanyahu with ceasing all support. And Trump is definitely not doing that, despite his isolationist approach to foreign policy.
Bingo.
|
If Palestinians declared unconditional surrender for both Gaza and West Bank and abandoned any demands of statehood, what would Israel do? Recognize these areas as part of Israel? Have their departments take over managing hospitals, schools, housing, rescue, police, etc? Recognize Palestinians as an internal ethnic group and thus Israelis and having equal rights under the law? Declare Palestinians as Egyptians and Jordanians and force them out of their homes? How would Egypt or Jordan react if Israel had been killing its citizens?
The government of Israel clearly has no idea about a future peaceful solution as it would require either recognizing a Palestinian state or Palestinians as citizens. Thus, only maintaining the status quo is left.
|
On November 09 2024 15:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 11:35 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 09:56 WombaT wrote:On November 09 2024 09:22 Billyboy wrote:On November 09 2024 05:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 09 2024 05:00 Billyboy wrote:
I don't really want to look up the hateful videos to see if the "anti-Israeli slurs" include anti-Semitism. But I would be willing to if you want to be bet some ban time or sig on the outcome. I'd be on the side of anti-Semitism being in the chants, and to make any bet fear I have seen them described as anti-Semitic in other articles. Either way that wouldn't be a chant. I don't want to do a ban bet with you because it doesn't seem that you have too much trouble coming back from bans. My apologies, I didn't know "chant" was your issue. It very well could have just been slogans they were saying while beating up and hitting with cars the people they hated. If Iranians travelled to some showdown with a European football team and were chanting that October 7th was great, and some of them got their shit kicked in. Would you describe that as an anti-Iranian, or indeed Islamophic event, or a reaction to those chants? These fans actively booed throughout a minute’s silence for Spanish flood victims, I’m assuming because the Spanish government and citizenry aren’t huge fans of how Israel is conducting this conflict. Or alternatively if some white folks just chilling and minding their own business get beaten up for being white, is that equivalent to a bunch of Neo-Nazis showing up and getting beaten up for chanting anti-minority slogans? As Jock alluded to, European football’s governing body concluded that two Israeli teams are the worst in their remit for racist chanting. Which is really saying something considering the behaviour of some Eastern European sides in recent years. You’ve never struck me as a particular football obsessive, I definitely am and I also read a lot about the intersection between football, culture and history. I’m rather on top of it let’s say This isn’t to say anti-Semitism also didn’t factor in, or that violence (in some cases against people who didn’t partake in such behaviour) is particularly justified. This is a extremely horrible take. Like you really think they got the same guys? And not the story that is actually being presented by every news source and their leftist mayor. Bunch of you have the logic abilities of MAGA's if it is bad for my side it isn't real, if it is good for my side it is, if there is video proof there is a good reason, or at least just a few bad apples. Eidt: not to mention if it was reversed it would still be bad, I would be saying how bad it was that the Jews did that and you would be agreeing with me. The thing that makes so many in this thread mad is that unlike you I'm against all hate crimes and when I point out the obvious parts you are leaving out to fit your narrative it makes you mad. Not sorry. Show nested quote +The thing that makes so many in this thread mad is that unlike you I'm against all hate crimes and when I point out the obvious parts you are leaving out to fit your narrative it makes you mad I'd be careful with that kind of rhetoric when you've spent the entire thread defending and justifying the deaths of tens of thousands of women and children.
There's a thing about football fan culture where this kind of violence can happen, especially when a team's fans turn up and behave the way some of Maccabi's fans behaved. It blurs the lines as to how much of this was antisemitism and how much was football hooligans wanting a fight. To make it clear, completely innocent fans have been killed before as revenge for things that happened in previous matches between the same teams. Football violence is insane and it can get especially bad in European games where teams don't come up against each other very often and the hooligans see it as an opportunity to do their thing. In their warped world they see it as 'representing' their team and country. When you see fans travel into Europe and behave the way Maccabi fans did the first thing you think as a football fan is "There's going to be trouble later". I would say the most likely situation there's probably some racists in there looking for Jews to beat up and probably some football hooligans in there looking for revenge. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be outraged at the violence btw.
Stop making shit up. Find your receipts, it should be easy since all the posts are saved. If you can't apologize. That goes for everyone who loves this line of attacks. Otherwise it becomes clear that in fact you are the one with the heart full of hate and projecting lets you pretend it is the other guys fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
