sherpa

Disagree completely. It's a tough business with a very tough mission goings against entities that have no rules.

The F-16 is not a game changer. It gives them more ability with older AMRAAM missiles and HARM. The problem is that the efficacy of air warfare depends on integrated deployment of a number of things. Jamming and other electronic warfare components are an integral part, and they don't have it. Russian anti air defenses are significant and capable. The F-16 would not do well against them, so must be kept out of range or low enough to avoid detection. That would limit effectiveness. It would limit Russian air offensive capabilities, but that isn't what they are doing. They are doing what Russians always do, which is ground stuff.

It seems that the faux outrage that Biden expressed at his disastrous press conference regarding the special council asking about his kid's death is another memory failure. It was Biden who brought it up, not the special counsel. The man is seriously damaged goods.

No fan of Trump, but having an obviously incompetent individual as president is no more comforting. Biden is clearly incompetent.

First, I think your claims of genocide are unfounded. Urban war is really ugly, but that's what they have chosen. Hamas has had 17 years to use funds and international aid to build a humane situation. They used those years and assets to build an underground weapons storage area to attack Israel. Self defense is determined by threat. I have no problem with Israel destroying what is a labyrinth designed to attack it and support/hide the aggressors. Your two questions are best directed at Israel, after the current threat is negated. I have no idea. Regarding question 2, they have attempted to normalize life there, including employing thousands of Palestinians in the successful Israeli economy. Hamas wanted none of that, thus their barbarism. I believe that they will eradicate Hamas' offensive capability, ie., destroy their unguided rockets launched at Israeli citizens, and if Hezbollah gets offensive in the north, at the Lebanon border, they will move against that threat. If that happens, it is a much bigger deal. Either way, the first thing to do when attacked is to defend and eliminate the threat. Longer term is unknown, but if the Palestinians want to live in a peaceful circumstance, they need to stop supporting terrorist regimes intent on killing Israelis. That is the start.

No worries. Biden will let us know that he has met with Nikita Kruschev recently, and we have nothing to worry about.

It looks like Joe Lieberman is heading a group to push a third party candidate. Not him, but somebody else. The rules of the electoral college open that option. We'll see if he gets any traction.

The withdrawal was a disgrace, and it's got Biden's signature on it. Whatever point you are trying to make noting the proximity of Afghanistan to Japan and Europe is baffling.

You are not sharp enough to discern this, but since you aren't, I will point this out. I specifically mentioned Europe, not Japan. We were attacked by Japan, so Truman and the bombs are not part of my point. We were not attacked by Germany. We have no idea what the escape from Afghanistan will ultimately cost, but was a disgraceful foreign policy debacle.

Not too hard to do. If foreign policy decisions are based on American lives lost, which you suggested, open Pandora's box. The disgusting withdrawal from Afghanistan will effect views on the US for years. We had no great need to assist the Europeans under attack from Hitler during WWII. We did, because it was the right thing to do. We created a responsibility to not abandon Afghan allies who had fought for years. We abandoned them, at massive cost to them and that region. Claiming that a foreign policy decision should be based on American lives lost in the short term is not only myopic, it is idiotic.

If that's your criteria for judging the success of this disgusting escape, we should have avoided participating in the European WWII.

Glad to. First, the Israelis don't have the capability, inclination or desire to "carpet bomb." I trust your sincerity about not being aware, but you made the accusation. What they are doing is attacking known Hamas underground tunnels. If that is done in an urban setting, it looks the way it does. That is the threat that Hamas has presented, and that is how it is being dealt with. They drew the chessboard, and that determines the response. Israel and the IDF have never engaged in anything resembling carpet bombing.

No offense, but I am quite sure you know nothing about carpet bombing, what the IDF has done, what they are faced with, or even their ability to "carpet bomb." In fact, I doubt you have any idea what "tactical warfare" they are employing. Again, no offense intended. I assert that you simply have no idea.

I don't answer for Trump or Putin. What I am familiar with, and from open source material, is the state of NATO at the date of Russia's invasion. Specifically, the gross disregard of NATO military agreements from Germany, Canada and a few others. All that aside, the funny thing about this site is that the reality of the issue is never discussed. Instead, people seem to think it's US politics that are the cornerstone. If you hate Trump, forget about NATO parties not living up to responsibilities, and the resultant commitment of disproportionate US money and potentially, lives. It's the way Trump packages it, and if anyone points those issues out, they must support Trump. Not true at all. The issue is not addressed. The political figures are. The sickening repetition never ends.

Simply absurd. Carpet bombing? Where did you ever get this? The Israelis have never done this in their history, and certainly not here. The "siege on Gaza" has been Hamas. They are the entity that took all of those assets and did nothing other than build an underground military assault capability designed to launce offensive operations and hide when the predictable response came.

Just for awareness, I have zero interest or concern regarding what you believe about me. Absolutely no interest or concern. Haley is infinitely better at expressing the issues re NATO/UN etc. I can't stand the guy, and that goes back to 1989. I think there are far more diplomatic methods with far more efficacy than what Trump is doing, but it plays to his base, so he does it. I find it revolting, but his view on NATO is not lost on people who know a bit about the nuts and bolts of military capability with likely scenarios.

This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time.

I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet.

I fully agree with Precision's post in response. Israel is a sovereign nation responding to a ceasefire break and the most heinous massacre in recent memory. They are not puppets of the US or any other nation that might provide aid. Their military is known for being extremely careful and professional, and I'm certain they are doing the same in this case. Hamas chooses to attack them and withdraw to areas on their own volition. There is no chance that Hamas gets to a moment where they change their tactics and future hope to eliminate Israel and all Israelis. That isn't going to happen. In my view, they are fully justified, and this oft repeated, since 1967, tactic of attacking Israel, losing the ensuing battle, and then going to the international community for sympathy and a forced ceasefire needs to end. Either way, the US has no right to demand that they pursue a "proportionate response" action. That day passed on Oct. 7.

In this case, Israel's definition of "self defense" is the elimination of Hamas. I don't have a problem with eliminating Hamas. They have defined the battlefield, and the battlefield determines the tactics.

I spent a little time looking at the evidence of this. It seems there really isn't any. The man says enough goofy stuff, but I think this is fiction. Either way it is completely unrelated to judging one of our greatest allies actions as being indiscriminate; actions he is incapable of knowing the details about.

I'd say the exact same thing now. It was senseless, and he has no way of knowing what he was talking about.

I'd support Nikki Haley, but that isn't going to be an option. I like her a bit better than I did Desantis, but I would have supported him if he got the nomination. Quite amazing how you never get anything right.

I'm hardly politically agnostic. I view my vote as an endorsement. If my conscience doesn't lead me to an endorsement, I won't vote for the person. Simple.

This might be too complicated for you. You are really bad at remembering things and understanding differences in positions. I never said "its a threat to peace." That is your imaginative, crazy creation. What I said was that it was a "senseless statement," and it was. Biden is the President of the US. Israel is involved in an extremely serious and deadly war, and we are a major ally and supporter. The statement was as totally false as it was senseless. Trump said something really stupid while shining light on a major problem within NATO. You repeatedly state falsehoods, then form premises and suggest conclusions. False from the start. False at the end, and too much work to attempt to unscrew. How many freakin' times do I have to answer this. Never have and never will. Would never vote for Biden either, but I'm getting confident that will never be an option.