ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th December 2019, 01:18 PM   #41
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't think it's naive, because it is based on very solid international law, and Security Council resolutions.
Do you think terrorists give a **** about international law or Security Council resolutions?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 01:21 PM   #42
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Israel decides, perhaps with a new government supported by Arab parties, to freeze all settlements, this will probably make Palestinians less angry, and reduce the risk of Palestinian attacks.
No. Concessions to Palestinians have never led to decreased attacks. Just look what happened with their Gaza withdrawl.

Quote:
However, for a true and final solution
"final solution". What could possibly go wrong?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:04 PM   #43
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you think terrorists give a **** about international law or Security Council resolutions?
I believe some at least know this, I vaguely remember reading a Fox News article, several years ago, which reported about an "al-Qaeda spokesman", who had spoken about "illegal Israeli behavior". They can read news websites and watch television like anybody else, these things are often recalled.

Quote:
The State of Israel has been accused of being a state-sponsor of terrorism,[1] and also committing acts of state terrorism
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...ored_terrorism ).

Anyway, everybody is supposed to know the law, whether "terrorists" or not. Attacks against an hypothetical law-abiding Israel could not be accepted.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:10 PM   #44
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe some at least know this, I vaguely remember reading a Fox News article, several years ago, which reported about an "al-Qaeda spokesman", who had spoken about "illegal Israeli behavior". They can read news websites and watch television like anybody else, these things are often recalled.
Wow, is that a stupid response.

They talk about Israel's "illegal" behavior because it's good propaganda for their cause, because it fools gullible idiots. That doesn't mean that actually give a **** about the law. Their own behavior reveals consistently that they do not.

Quote:
Anyway, everybody is supposed to know the law, whether "terrorists" or not.
It's not an issue of whether they know the law. You can know the law and still not follow it or care about it.

Quote:
Attacks against an hypothetical law-abiding Israel could not be accepted.
The irony of you appealing to international law when you don't have a clue about it is probably lost on you, but that's not even how the law works. Terrorist attacks are against people, and those people haven't broken international laws.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:16 PM   #45
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Concessions to Palestinians have never led to decreased attacks. Just look what happened with their Gaza withdrawl.
I think it was a step in the right direction, but very incomplete (there is still a blockade).

Look at what happened with the Israeli settlements in the Sinai peninsula: the evacuation of the settlements there led to peace with Egypt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...ation_of_Sinai.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:24 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I think it was a step in the right direction, but very incomplete (there is still a blockade).
Yes, it was a step in the right direction. So what did Palestinians do? Did they reward Israel, in the hopes of earning more concessions? That's the logical approach: reward people for behavior you like, don't punish them for doing what you want.

But they didn't do that. They increased violence against Israel in response to the withdrawl. How does that make sense?

The Palestinians do not act rationally. Or more precisely, the leadership does not act to rationally advance the interests of the majority of Palestinians. The leadership themselves are doing quite well out of the conflict, so I suppose it's rational in that sense.

Quote:
Look at what happened with the Israeli settlements in the Sinai peninsula: the evacuation of the settlements there led to peace with Egypt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...ation_of_Sinai.
No. You have that backwards. Peace happened first. The withdrawl was part of a negotiated settlement that was possible because of peace.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:29 PM   #47
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The irony of you appealing to international law when you don't have a clue about it
?
I know U.N. Resolution 242.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Just look what happened with their Gaza withdrawl.
I hope that you have a clue about proper English spelling.
Quote:
that's not even how the law works. Terrorist attacks are against people, and those people haven't broken international laws.
That's probably what the people in Hiroshima thought too.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:34 PM   #48
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. You have that backwards. Peace happened first. The withdrawl was part of a negotiated settlement that was possible because of peace.
No, peace did not happen just by itself, because of nothing, peace was the result of Israeli concessions. Use your little brain.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:36 PM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
?
I know U.N. Resolution 242.
But you don't seem to know that violations of international law from one party do not justify terrorist attacks by another party.

Quote:
That's probably what the people in Hiroshima thought too.
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima wasn't a violation of international law.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:41 PM   #50
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, peace did not happen just by itself, because of nothing, peace was the result of Israeli concessions.
I didn't say it happened by itself. But the negotiations which produced Israeli withdrawal happened years after the cessation of hostilities. That cessation of hostilities was a prerequisite to the negotiations which led to the withdrawal. So no, peace happened first.

Quote:
Use your little brain.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:44 PM   #51
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But you don't seem to know that violations of international law from one party do not justify terrorist attacks by another party.
I am not saying terrorism is justified, I would avoid saying such a thing on a public forum, I just think it can sometimes be understandable, when powerful nations commit major crimes.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:48 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I think it was a step in the right direction, but very incomplete (there is still a blockade).
The blockade wasn't there to begin with. It was added later, after the Gazans responded very badly to the major gesture of appeasement.

There are few better examples in history, of the failure of appeasement, than the aftermath of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and the reasons why it's now blockaded by both Israel and Egypt.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:59 PM   #53
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am not saying terrorism is justified, I would avoid saying such a thing on a public forum,
No, of course not. It's OK to think that, but people get upset when you say it out loud.

Quote:
I just think it can sometimes be understandable, when powerful nations commit major crimes.
Islamic terrorists use terrorism against anyone and everyone, including the poor, the weak, and even (if not mostly) other muslims. It isn't a response to powerful nations committing major crimes, because powerful nations aren't even the primary targets. And they would use terrorism no matter what we did. Our actions might affect their target selection, but I'm not interested in feeding the crocodile in the hopes that it eats me last.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:16 PM   #54
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Islamic terrorists use terrorism against anyone and everyone, including the poor, the weak, and even (if not mostly) other muslims. It isn't a response to powerful nations committing major crimes, because powerful nations aren't even the primary targets. And they would use terrorism no matter what we did. Our actions might affect their target selection, but I'm not interested in feeding the crocodile in the hopes that it eats me last.
I think there is an important concept you should perhaps meditate on, like many U.S. conservatives (including Donald Trump, in his dealings with Iran), and this concept or notion is called "respect". It is often wrong to assume that a certain wide category of people is completely idiotic, and, sadly, such beliefs may mean that you are yourself (and here I am very general, not speaking about you specifically) the idiot.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:19 PM   #55
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I think there is an important concept you should perhaps meditate on, like many U.S. conservatives (including Donald Trump, in his dealings with Iran), and this concept or notion is called "respect". It is often wrong to assume that a certain wide category of people is completely idiotic, and, sadly, such beliefs may mean that you are yourself (and here I am very general, not speaking about you specifically) the idiot.
Nothing in that paragraph you quoted even suggests that I think Islamic terrorists are idiots. They are evil, but that's far from synonymous with stupid. No, the only idiocy I've referred to has its origins elsewhere, and it's not assumed idiocy, it's demonstrated idiocy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 04:48 AM   #56
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,184
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
As far as I know, appeasement works better than demonizing your opponents.

In September 1939, the British government said that it had seen enough of Adolf Hitler's expansionist policies, and decided to declare war, even though Germany had not attacked Britain, and was actually seeking peace with the British. Hitler had (brutally) attacked Poland two days before mostly to unify Germany, because East Prussia was then separated from the rest of Germany by the Polish Corridor, see (if necessary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor , https://www.britannica.com/place/Polish-Corridor.



Quote:
Six years later, had this war policy "worked"? Of course, Hitler was dead. But about 60 million had died too, many millions were injured, economies were devastated, still nowadays there are still unexploded ordnances from this conflict, and I am not convinced the world has really learnt and drawn the right conclusions from this war (and this is perhaps the most terrible thing of all: not having learnt from your mistakes).
Do you think that WWII wouldn't have happened if Britain had just left poor little Hitler alone? He would have just taken Poland, killed it's Jews, and left the rest of Europe alone? Makes me wonder why he invaded Russia if he really wanted peace and was only attempting to unify Germany...

The US probably should have stayed out of Japan's business too, right?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 05:04 AM   #57
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
CNBC reported in November 2018 that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan had cost American taxpayers $5.9 trillion since they began in 2001.
I perfer to look at the primary source directly, if you will. Here's the study.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...0FY2019%20.pdf

The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post9/11 war veterans

There's a table that spells it out. The $5.9 trillion figure includes all overseas contingencies operations (assuming none would be necessary without the war), assumes increases in budget for DoD are thanks to those wars (and not Russia/China), Medical and Disability Care for Post-9/11 Veterans (assuming there wouldn't be any without the wars), Homeland Security Spending for Prevention and Response to Terrorism (which have nothing to do with the wars but with the terrorist threat), interest payments and future obligations to veterans until FY2059.

In other words, the cost estimate is $5.6 trillion over 60 years. At this point a serious study would mention which dollar is it, because the 2001 dollar is not the same to 2018 dollar, which is profoundly different to 2059 dollar. Of course no such information is given, convenient. As I mentioned above the number too is problematic because it makes all sorts of wild assumptions with little or no basis in reality.

It's like those 'studies' who add promises of Medicare and Social Security to deficit. My advice would be to pay no attention to such propaganda pieces of feces.

Quote:
That huge amount of money could have been used to build solar, wind and safe nuclear power plants to help stop climate change and provide clean and affordable energy, for example.
That huge amount of money is a piece of accounting fiction.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 6th December 2019 at 05:09 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:21 AM   #58
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Do you think that WWII wouldn't have happened if Britain had just left poor little Hitler alone? He would have just taken Poland, killed it's Jews, and left the rest of Europe alone? Makes me wonder why he invaded Russia if he really wanted peace and was only attempting to unify Germany...

The US probably should have stayed out of Japan's business too, right?
It seems to me that the terrible (and very unfair) persecutions against the Jews during World War II were largely a consequence of Neville Chamberlain's decision to declare war to Germany on September 3, 1939 (France then followed quickly). This was made clear by Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939:
Quote:
If international finance Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in once again plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
(https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dacha...rSpeeches.html ).

Hitler then invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, and bombed Britain. It seems to work pretty good for him for a while, and so he thought "Why not invade the Soviet Union, achieve hegemony in Europe and get more Lebensraum, since my invasions seem to work so well?". And the full catastrophy happened. The responsability of the UK and US in the large number of fatalities and casualties of WWII is generally much underestimated, in my opinion, most historians have generally adopted a UK-US point of view.

And this is creating problems now, because the US is not criticized enough around the world, and its vicious imperialism ("sanctions", invasions, threats, too much military spending ...) is preventing us, we human beings, to focus on real issues: fighting climate change, pollution, poverty and so on ...
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:25 AM   #59
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't think it's naive, because it is based on very solid international law, and Security Council resolutions.
Thanks for demonstrating why Liberals are so bad at Foreign Policy in tough times. Under *Your* watch, we'd have a Nazi dominated Europe who would have gotten Nukes first.

Honestly I think you're too Naive to be allowed to vote. It is historical fact Hitler had cranial guano and his main obsession was the final solution. Please don't vote.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:26 AM   #60
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you think terrorists give a **** about international law or Security Council resolutions?
Like I said; Dangerously Naive.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:28 AM   #61
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, peace did not happen just by itself, because of nothing, peace was the result of Israeli concessions. Use your little brain.
After your response regarding your desire to appease Hitler, you have no business worrying about anyone's brain size.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:30 AM   #62
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It seems to me that the terrible (and very unfair) persecutions against the Jews during World War II were largely a consequence of Neville Chamberlain's decision to declare war to Germany on September 3, 1939 (France then followed quickly). This was made clear by Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939:

(https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dacha...rSpeeches.html ).

Hitler then invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, and bombed Britain. It seems to work pretty good for him for a while, and so he thought "Why not invade the Soviet Union, achieve hegemony in Europe and get more Lebensraum, since my invasions seem to work so well?". And the full catastrophy happened. The responsability of the UK and US in the large number of fatalities and casualties of WWII is generally much underestimated, in my opinion, most historians have generally adopted a UK-US point of view.

And this is creating problems now, because the US is not criticized enough around the world, and its vicious imperialism ("sanctions", invasions, threats, too much military spending ...) is preventing us, we human beings, to focus on real issues: fighting climate change, pollution, poverty and so on ...
Painfully Naive

Last edited by rockysmith76; 6th December 2019 at 07:31 AM.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:44 AM   #63
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Painfully Naive
No, it's not, it's just a little different from what you are used to read, that's all. Please don't count me as one of Adolf Hitler's supporters, because I am not (as is clear from the post you just quoted).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 07:48 AM   #64
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, it's not, it's just a little different from what you are used to read, that's all. Please don't count me as one of Adolf Hitler's supporters, because I am not (as is clear from the post you just quoted).
It doesn't matter if you are or not, doing things your way would have won him the war, and a whole lot more Jews would be dead and gone. Not a supporter just all too willing to bend over for him. Painfully, Woefully Naive.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 08:06 AM   #65
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
I perfer to look at the primary source directly, if you will. Here's the study.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...0FY2019%20.pdf

The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post9/11 war veterans

There's a table that spells it out. The $5.9 trillion figure includes all overseas contingencies operations (assuming none would be necessary without the war), assumes increases in budget for DoD are thanks to those wars (and not Russia/China), Medical and Disability Care for Post-9/11 Veterans (assuming there wouldn't be any without the wars), Homeland Security Spending for Prevention and Response to Terrorism (which have nothing to do with the wars but with the terrorist threat), interest payments and future obligations to veterans until FY2059.

In other words, the cost estimate is $5.6 trillion over 60 years. At this point a serious study would mention which dollar is it, because the 2001 dollar is not the same to 2018 dollar, which is profoundly different to 2059 dollar. Of course no such information is given, convenient. As I mentioned above the number too is problematic because it makes all sorts of wild assumptions with little or no basis in reality.

It's like those 'studies' who add promises of Medicare and Social Security to deficit. My advice would be to pay no attention to such propaganda pieces of feces.



That huge amount of money is a piece of accounting fiction.

McHrozni
Donald Trump himself said in 2016:
Quote:
Weíve spent $6 trillion on the wars in the Middle East.
(that was in 2016, we are now more than 3 years later).

This statement was rated "half-true" by PolitiFact one day later:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...dle-east-wars/.

They said:
Quote:
What we found is that Trump confused whatís been spent, and what is projected to be spent. That said, heís right to note the large cost of U.S. intervention in the Middle East.
The Brown University study was quoted by PolitiFact, and was apparently deemed serious. They said:
Quote:
A recent Brown University study, for example, pinned the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria at about $3.6 trillion from 2001 to 2016 ... A 2013 Harvard University working paper came up with an even higher cost: $4 trillion to $6 trillion for just Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you want to estimate the total cost, it's normal to estimate it over a long period of time (like 60 years), because injured or disabled veterans will have to get paid over a long period of time.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 08:13 AM   #66
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,103
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Israel decides, perhaps with a new government supported by Arab parties, to freeze all settlements, this will probably make Palestinians less angry, and reduce the risk of Palestinian attacks.
Political power in Palestine is based on how anti-Israel you are. Anyone who works with any Israeli government will see their political power erode and how open the Israeli government is to peace and establishing a Palestinian state doesnít matter.
We have seen this cycle play out many times already. The Palestinian party that negotiates a peace treat with Israel sees their political power erode in favor of more extreme parties. The more extreme parties eventually gain sufficient power the one that negotiated with Israel can no longer police the Palestinian side of the border. The extremists begin firing rackets at hospitals, elementary schools, etc in Israel until Israel has no choice but to respond militarily to try and take out the launch sites and weapons stores.

Again, I strongly support the notion that Israel needs to accept the two state solution and stop advancing itís borders but a two state solution will never work if the very first thing the Palestinian state does is declare war on Israel.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, for a true and final solution, Israel would need to evacuate all illegally occupied land, in my opinion (unless it manages to buy some land legally, and to sign a new peace treaty changing borders). I don't know how (un)likely this is though. The about 700,000 settlers,
Due to itís strategic importance there is likely no way Israel will leave the Golan any time soon, it simply leaves them to vulnerable to invasion. Iím also not sure going back to the 1967 borders makes sense anymore. Regardless of how they got there, displacing people who have spent their entire adult lives in a place, in favor of people who have never set foot there feels wrong. Itís also something that seems more like an excuse for hatred than an actual cause.

More recent settlements need to be shut down for sure. Like I said though, this is a cycle weíve seen before. It doesnít make a difference. Sooner or later Palestinians will be attacking Israel, most likely Israeli children because they know this will eventually draw a military response.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't know how (un)likely this is though. The about 700,000 settlers, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, could, however, remain where they live now, and even retain their Israeli citizenship while getting Palestinian residency. When you look at the problem in this way, it doesn't seem that hard.
Suicide itís exactly a good option. Palestinian children are taught genocide in elementary school and Palestinian government that are not sufficiently anti-Israeli quickly loose the power to enforce laws or keep people safe within itís borders.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 08:24 AM   #67
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
It doesn't matter if you are or not, doing things your way would have won him the war, and a whole lot more Jews would be dead and gone. Not a supporter just all too willing to bend over for him. Painfully, Woefully Naive.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you are or not, doing things your way would have won him the war
No, because it seems to me the Polish under military rule and occupation should have had the right to protest against the occupation (perhaps using a little violence, if really necessary) until German troops are gone. Then, some good freeways and railways, mostly paid by the Germans, could have been built between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (but a freeway was refused by the Polish in 1939).
Quote:
a whole lot more Jews would be dead and gone
No, many Jews died because of Chamberlain's (and later Daladier's) declaration of war. It was a way for Hitler to "seek revenge". There was no Jewish genocide in 1938 in Germany (there were already serious and unfair persecutions against the Jews, but they were made a lot worse by the war, and the UK and US bombings).

Last edited by Michel H; 6th December 2019 at 09:33 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:20 AM   #68
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again, I strongly support the notion that Israel needs to accept the two state solution and stop advancing itís borders but a two state solution will never work if the very first thing the Palestinian state does is declare war on Israel.
I am glad to read this, it already means a lot.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:02 AM   #69
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, many Jews died because of Chamberlain's (and later Daladier's) declaration of war.
The problem with Hitler is that other people were too mean to him.

Well, that's a take.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:44 AM   #70
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If I had lived at that time, I would have been against the invasions and massive bombing (whether done by Germany or the Allies), and also against the persecution of Jews, just like I am against the persecution of Palestinians and sanctions against Iran and other countries now.
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force. But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi victory is desirable in itself. In the letter you sent on to me, Mr Comfort considers that an artist in occupied territory ought to ‘protest against such evils as he sees’, but considers that this is best done by ‘temporarily accepting the status quo’ (like Dťat or Bergery, for instance?). A few weeks back he was hoping for a Nazi victory because of the stimulating effect it would have upon the arts"

- George Orwell
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:45 AM   #71
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The problem with Hitler is that other people were too mean to him.

Well, that's a take.
I would not go so far as to say that it would have been possible to deal with Hitler and the Nazis without using any kind of violence at all, but I believe a more moderate approach than the one chosen by the UK, France and the US would probably have given much better results, in terms of protection of human life.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:59 AM   #72
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The world inside your head must be a very strange place.
On the contrary, I feel very normal, in terms of my political opinions. So normal in fact that no violent reaction to such opinions is justified, in my opinion.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 11:57 AM   #73
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
And the Hitlers of the world are encouraged and the killing continues, good job. Title stands, enjoy your Fancy Cheese.
I think that you still misunderstand that Hitler became so violent (particularly against the Jews) only after and because the declaration of war by Britain in September 1939:
Quote:
The Royal Air Force began bombing military targets in Germany, such as docks and shipyards, in March 1940.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...g_World_War_II)
Quote:
Blockade of Germany (1939–1945)
... The first period was from the beginning of European hostilities in September 1939 to the end of the "Phoney War," during which the Allies and Axis Powers both intercepted neutral merchant ships to seize deliveries en route to the enemy.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany)
In other words, at the beginning, "repression" just made the problem enormously worse.

Last edited by Michel H; 6th December 2019 at 12:00 PM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:02 PM   #74
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I think that you still misunderstand that Hitler became so violent (particularly against the Jews) only after and because the declaration of war by Britain in September 1939:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...g_World_War_II)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany)
In other words, at the beginning, "repression" just made the problem enormously worse.
Not at all, I'm just saddened by your >mean adjective ommited so as to not hurt your feelings< take on reality as well as WW II. Get a clue.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:09 PM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I think that you still misunderstand that Hitler became so violent (particularly against the Jews) only after and because the declaration of war by Britain in September 1939:
You seem to believe Hitler wouldn't have gotten more violent with the Jews over time if the Allies didn't stand up to him. But that's purely conjecture on your part, and not very plausible conjecture either. His betrayal of Stalin is a pretty good indicator that his intentions were always to war, and not simply a reaction to hostility from others.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:23 PM   #76
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You seem to believe Hitler wouldn't have gotten more violent with the Jews over time if the Allies didn't stand up to him. But that's purely conjecture on your part, and not very plausible conjecture either. His betrayal of Stalin is a pretty good indicator that his intentions were always to war, and not simply a reaction to hostility from others.
I dont see getting through to the guy, lets just be glad he wasn't in FDR's seat at the time.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:26 PM   #77
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Do you think that WWII wouldn't have happened if Britain had just left poor little Hitler alone? He would have just taken Poland, killed it's Jews, and left the rest of Europe alone? Makes me wonder why he invaded Russia if he really wanted peace and was only attempting to unify Germany...

The US probably should have stayed out of Japan's business too, right?
Not to mention that Hitler saw Poland as just a stepping off point for Russia;German conquest of Russia was Hitler's #1 goal;he made that clear in Mein Kampf.

As someone said, the problem with Pacifism is if you actually adapt it, you are turning over the world to it's most evil leaders.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #78
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You seem to believe Hitler wouldn't have gotten more violent with the Jews over time if the Allies didn't stand up to him. But that's purely conjecture on your part, and not very plausible conjecture either. His betrayal of Stalin is a pretty good indicator that his intentions were always to war, and not simply a reaction to hostility from others.
It seems to me that the September 1939 decision by the UK and France to declare war and attack Germany (followed by a naval blockade, a small ground invasion and bombing) was a big aggravating factor in the conflict (especially for the unfortunate Jews). They (UK and France) wanted to play the role of "policemen of Europe" (they had not themselves be attacked), and this not work well for them at the beginning, especially for France.

Hitler had clearly linked attacks against the Jews with war in Europe in his January 30, 1939 Reichstag speech:
Quote:
If international finance Jewry in and outside Europe succeeds in plunging the peoples into another world war, then the end result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and the consequent victory of Jewry but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
(it seems that he overestimated the role of alleged "Jewish conspirators" in the British decision to go to war). So I think it is reasonable to assume that the Jews would have been better off if their overactive friends the UK and France had not tried to support them (and especially Poland) a little too much.

Hitler has explained in detail his reasons for attacking the Soviet Union in his June 22, 1941 "Proclamation of War with the Soviet Union" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F...:_22_June_1941 ) and in a October 3, 1941 speech at the Berlin Sportpalast (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf...e_Soviet_Union, see https://archive.org/details/TheHitle...ovietUnion.mp4 for a recording of that speech). He noted that Stalin had attacked Finland on November 30, 1939, and annexed part of it, and invaded and annexed all three Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, in June 1940), and claimed that the Soviet Union was now threatening the German Reich with an invasion, and that a preemptive war was therefore necessary. This may seem laughable to you, because Adolf Hitler is often protrayed as the ultimate evil monster, but there are historians who take that claim by Hitler seriously:
Quote:
... a popular historian Viktor Suvorov has argued that Stalin planned to attack Hitler from behind while Germany fought the Allies, and Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by Hitler. [1]. That idea was criticized by a number of historians, such as David Glantz[2][3], but supported by Mikhail Meltyukhov, Boris Vadimovich Sokolov and some others. ...
Middle positions
In a 1987 article in the Historische Zeitschrift journal, the German historian Klaus Hildebrand argued that both Hitler and Stalin separately were planning to attack each other in 1941.[49] In Hildebrand’s opinion, the news of Red Army concentrations near the border led to Hitler engaging in a Flucht nach vorn ("flight forward"-i.e. responding to a danger by charging on rather than retreating).[49] Hildebrand wrote "Independently, the National Socialist program of conquest met the equally far-reaching war-aims program which Stalin had drawn up in 1940 at the latest".[49]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...ns_controversy )

Last edited by Michel H; Yesterday at 08:46 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:17 AM   #79
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Not to mention that Hitler saw Poland as just a stepping off point for Russia;German conquest of Russia was Hitler's #1 goal;he made that clear in Mein Kampf.

As someone said, the problem with Pacifism is if you actually adapt it, you are turning over the world to it's most evil leaders.
In Mein Kampf (written in 1925), Hitler said:
Quote:
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf).

However, in view of his difficulties with the UK and France, Hitler had ordered his minister Ribbentrop to sign a treaty of non-aggression with the Soviets in August 1939. I am not totally convinced that he would violated this pact had the UK and France not declared war (though it is certainly a possibility that he would have violated it anyway), because his initial great military successes may have given him confidence that the German military was very strong, and far superior to the Soviet military.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:32 AM   #80
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
I dont see getting through to the guy, lets just be glad he wasn't in FDR's seat at the time.
Whilst totally disagreeing with MichelH let's keep the facts straight. The USA was very much of a leave Europe to the Europeans attitude for some time even after Hitler started invading other European countries. American appeasment was part of Hitler's calculations, he did not think the Americans would commit to another war in Europe. And for quite some time he was correct.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.