Originally posted by georgenorman
Does throwing a bottle in the face of a policewoman help?

"I had a coffee this morning, that didn't help either.

In the context of tens of thousands of dead civilians, I really couldn't care any less about some handbags at a protest."

How have I misquoted you - you think throwing a bottle in the face of a policewoman is "handbags" and you "really couldn't care any less".

I noticed this error yesterday but left it to others to point out.

Posts are being wrongly attributed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I am not anti-Israeli. I am anti-Israeli Government, and those that support its actions of mass murder.
The same as not all Palestinians voted for Hamas. And Hamas are 5hlt5 of the first order too.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Following the '9/11' terrorist attacks in America, Britain deployed to Afghanistan with the US and other allies to destroy al-Qaeda, and the Taleban who had backed them.

Following the 7/10 terrorist attack in Israel I see no difference here in Israel destroying Hamas and the people who back them.

I don't see tony Blair or bush up for war time charges.

Imagine the bbc and sky reporting Taliban and al qaeda press releases like they do with Hamas. There would have been uproar.

Machiavelli taught....quite correctly as Alexander demonstrated thousands of years before....there are limited approaches to conflict if you want to win.

If you make the choice to fight (which costs so much should only be existential) you eliminate the opposition (either militarily by killing them all or by taking and mating all their women and so ending their identity within a generation).

There is an exception to this with highly organised and rule based societies but I won't labour that point.

The cost of war is so high it's why the decision to engage in major war is so important to get right.....nine times out of ten it isn't worth the cost both in lives and economically.

Learning this is why I went from a neo con to being anti war nine times out of ten....I'm interested in actual success not failure dressed up as success.

There is one other way more limited way to win and that's if you have limited war gains with definite exit strategies.

However, the problem with leaving a defeated enemy with its own identity and stories in place stores up future conflict. Harming the opposition or degrading them just doesn't work.

We lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, both are run by governments unfriendly to the west. Our militaries were never safe there.....Hell Afghanistan is ran by the Taliban.

The lesson of history is not to engage in wars unless they are existential and/or your analysis makes you very sure you will win.

Sadly we are still ruled by chancers with bad judgement....it's extremely dangerous and at the moment we are looking at three situations around the world that could mean we all die.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2024 11.26am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

My reading of WW2 isn't what it was once I studied it and realised what I've been raised with was quite different.

However, I fully agree with you.

There is something to be said about the British political system that declines and reduces the British military to a shadow of its former self and then continues to behave on the world stage like we carry a big stick.

Pride becomes before a fall.....and as it'll be people like us taking that fall and not the insulated wealthy politicians, I'm not impressed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2024 12.25pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)