I don't think I made any comments for or against the hate of HAMAS in my last post.  My last post is to provide context on who helped created HAMAS and indirectly illustrate the adage, "you reap what you sow."

HAMAS' recent actions on non-combatant Israelis are non-acceptable on any level.  Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and belligerent actions towards Palestinian civilians over the decades are equally non-acceptable.

The Oslo Accords agreed by both Israel and the Palestinians need to be followed through in order to have a chance of peaceful coexistence in those lands.

'You reap what you sow" is, in fact, a judgmental saying.  it implies the "sowing" is itself a bad action, which will in turn "reap" bad things.

The goal of the "sowing" was benevolent IMO.  I think trying to hinder the terroristic activities of the PLO was a good thing, in particular for the Israeli residents.  The fact that the future is unpredictable means you can't judge their actions based on the unintended outcome.

Also, Hamas has been targeting civilians in Israel since 1989, two years after its inception.  There's nothing "recent" about their "actions on non-combatant Israelis".  These are just the latest in a long history of doing the same thing on a less deadly scale.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-israel-history-confrontation-2021-05-14/

When one side chooses violence,
and the other side chooses not to respond in kind,
you do not have peace.

You have surrendered.

Israel has a right to defend itself, but if we get involved then we are going to kick off hyperinflation and the end of the US Dollar

This is why China and Palestine signed a security agreement not too long ago. Their own people are disposable when it comes to larger geopolitical ambitions.

Is sending two carrier groups to the region a good idea?

Hezbollah and Iran don't give a rat's ass.  They already are clashing with Israel on that side of the border.  Didn't seem like those carrier groups scared them one bit.

edited to add:  Probably because they know who is running the show here in the Un-United States of America.

Israel has a right to defend itself, but if we get involved then we are going to kick off hyperinflation and the end of the US Dollar

This is why China and Palestine signed a security agreement not too long ago. Their own people are disposable when it comes to larger geopolitical ambitions.

Palestine signed more than one peace agreement with Israel, too.  Hamas protested the agreements by blowing up buses and raining missiles down on civilians.

Don't confuse Palestine and Hamas as being one and the same.

Is sending two carrier groups to the region a good idea?

Hezbollah and Iran don't give a rat's ass.  They already are clashing with Israel on that side of the border.  Didn't seem like those carrier groups scared them one bit.

edited to add:  Probably because they know who is running the show here in the Un-United States of America.

The main reason why CSGs are sent there is to preserve economic prosperity by ensuring sea lanes are open.


Mission Statement

The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President.

Palestine signed more than one peace agreement with Israel, too.  Hamas protested the agreements by blowing up buses and raining missiles down on civilians.

Don't confuse Palestine and Hamas as being one and the same.

To clarify things  the Palestinian Authority is the other entity in control of the west bank, and is a competitor to Hamas.  The PA has a more moderate view of Israel, like barely tolerable, compared to Hamas that wants to exterminate Jews.

The Chinese regime who murdered millions with their covid bioweapon and regularly harvests organs from political prisoners in the back of a van with no anesthesia is not going to have an ethical problem working with terrorists to suck us into multiple conflicts

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/

The Chinese regime who murdered millions with their covid bioweapon and regularly harvests organs from political prisoners in the back of a van with no anesthesia is not going to have an ethical problem working with terrorists to suck us into multiple conflicts

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/

Our military doctrine since the mid-1980s has been to prepare for at least 3 simultaneous wars, hopefully with material and personnel support from NATO and UN allies.

Our problem is we have lacked the autonomy and fortitude to actually win the wars we've fought recently.  We do peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid, regime building or regional stabilization.  We go after terrorists we can't identify or find, and we send more troops and supplies in pursuit of these objectives than was every used in Vietnam or Korea.

We poise for WWIII, but wind up in a series of skirmishes -- death by 1000 cuts.

Our military doctrine since the mid-1980s has been to prepare for at least 3 simultaneous wars, hopefully with material and personnel support from NATO and UN allies.

Our problem is we have lacked the autonomy and fortitude to actually win the wars we've fought recently.  We do peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid, regime building or regional stabilization.  We go after terrorists we can't identify of find, and we send more troops and supplies in pursuit of these objectives than was every used in Vietnam or Korea.

We poise for WWIII, but wind up in a series of skirmishes -- death by 1000 cuts.

"Our problem is we have lacked the autonomy and fortitude to actually win the wars we've fought recently"
Real problem is only Congress can pass a LAW declaring war.
That has not been done since WW II.
The conflicts we have all lost were political and subject to the whims of who ever got elected.
Not Constitutional law.
I think the law authorizing WW II was not repealed till 1947.
Military has to be able to react quickly to imminent threats, but 20 year wars like Afghanistan or Vietnam
are clearly unconstitutional.
I know we have treaties that are laws and we have to kinetically comply,  Korea is an example
but why are we still there?
Believe you me, I begged to be sent to Korea in 1977,
when I PCS'ed out of Guam.
But wars committed to without Congressional laws authorizing them, will fail
and have, as we have seen in recent history.
As Rome noted, "the mob" is fickle.
 

Our military doctrine since the mid-1980s has been to prepare for at least 3 simultaneous wars, hopefully with material and personnel support from NATO and UN allies.

That's why China is trying to get us into 4

We poise for WWIII, but wind up in a series of skirmishes -- death by 1000 cuts.

You do realize that preparing and actively engaging in WWIII is nothing short of the eventual near-total annihilation of the planet.

If one understands that reality, preparing to fight 3 simultaneous wars especially in the case of military peers is sheer insanity, aside of being a total waste of money.

That's why China is trying to get us into 4

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What evidence is there to substantiate the position that China is actively conspiring to have the US empire fight 4 wars?

Per Groveler's recent post, given the US empire's track record of getting into conflicts that were not preceded by a formal declaration of war by Congress since WWII, China does not even need to maneuver the US empire into another war of aggression or illegal invasion, as the US empire will eventual do so by its own accord.

That's why China is trying to get us into 4

We'll just outsource the 4th to some place like Mexico or S. Korea.  They can use the economic boost!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What evidence is there to substantiate the position that China is actively conspiring to have the US empire fight 4 wars?

Per Groveler's recent post, given the US empire's track record of getting into conflicts that were not preceded by a formal declaration of war by Congress since WWII, China does not even need to maneuver the US empire into another war of aggression or illegal invasion, as the US empire will eventual do so by its own accord.

Your egg rolls are getting cold, Comrade ... 

Your egg rolls are getting cold, Comrade ...

The truth is still the truth, friendo.

You do realize that preparing and actively engaging in WWIII is nothing short of the eventual near-total annihilation of the planet.

If one understands that reality, preparing to fight 3 simultaneous wars especially in the case of military peers is sheer insanity, aside of being a total waste of money.

Really?  That song's been played since about 1950.

The planet will be here long after the human race has vanished -- probably relocated to Mars.

The truth is still the truth, friendo.

The truth is now. 

Talking about what will be in the future is not truth.  It's prognostication.

"Our problem is we have lacked the autonomy and fortitude to actually win the wars we've fought recently"
Real problem is only Congress can pass a LAW declaring war.
That has not been done since WW II.
...

That's not 100% accurate.

The Constitution gives congress the authority to declare war, but the War Powers
Resolution gives the President the authority to commit the US to armed conflict
without Congress' consent.

The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution.
It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by
declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national
emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its
armed forces".

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours
of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining f
or more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional
authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The real reason the US hasn't declared war has nothing to do with Congress or the President.

When the US ratified the UN Charter, it outlawed all formal declarations of war between and involving member nations.

To declare war while the UN still exists would be for the US to be sanctioned, and the President likely prosecuted for crimes against the UN.

However, a rose by any other name ...

My point is the UN rules haven't stopped war.  They simply eliminated the best hope of the two sides ending a war through negotiations.

If nobody declares war, how can you have peace talks?  A truce?  in Korea, they had peace talks because the main players, North & South Korea, were at actual war.  The UN and US were there as a part of a "Police Action."

Makes everything stupidly ambiguous and difficult to know proper diplomatic steps to halt hostilities.