DerekLoffin's forum posts

#1 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

@DerekLoffin said:

So far the casualty count speak far louder that they are haphazard (and particularly incidents like the hospitals being hit when they knew they were occupied). I'm being nice interpreting this simply as reckless rather than deliberate. And beyond that, I didn't say do nothing, I said negotiate. In fact, this offensive has cost them more lives than all rocket attacks ever (not just recent ones, EVER). That isn't smart tactics if your goal is to improve safety unless you just like sacrificing your own troops.

And I didn't say they were indiscriminately massacring Arabs (nice completely BS reading of my post though). I'm quite certain they have reasons for every target they make, those reasons have just been shown to be very disturbing wanting on many occasions to the point of being inexcusable.

Please enlighten me then as to what you think those reasons are. You've said that you are starting to "agree with the skeptics" that the stated goals are "BS", that you are being "nice" by describing civilian casualties as reckless rather than deliberate, and that the reasons behind the targets that they make is "disturbing" and "inexcusable." If you aren't going to be clear with your language I have no choice but to read between the lines.

As for negotiations, obviously as a matter of principle negotiations are preferable over armed conflict, but Hamas isn't going to negotiate away its rockets or its underground tunnel system, and as a general strategy the less Israel negotiates with Hamas the better.

Reasons for what? Their stated goals I already gave. Their real goals, asking for such is just flame bait and you know it as neither of us know the truth, I just see the stated goals aren't compatible with their actions so I highly suspect there is some alternate goal.

As to the negotiations, when you start on the basis: "hey, give us your every ability to defend yourself" yeah, I'm sure that wouldn't go over well. Maybe something a tad more reasonable like, hey you stop shooting at us, and we'll stop killing you, might work better.

#2 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

@DerekLoffin said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

What is the alternative? How else is Israel suppose to be expected to fight this war?

Really honestly, the statistics show they shouldn't be fighting it at all. Military operations only increase the deaths on both sides, and further empower their enemies with more popular support, while negotiation does the opposite, actually reducing the violence, and reducing the number willing to support their enemies. This assumes of course the stated goals of this operation are what they claim, but sadly I'm starting to agree with the skeptics that it is looking increasingly like the stated goals are BS. The IDF is increasingly looking like they are just using the "human shield" argument to absolve themselves of all responsibility and allow them to pursue war completely unburdened. It reminds me of a recent incident where a swat team was serving a warrant, the front door to the residence we blocked, so without looking, they threw a grenade in, only to later find out said block was a child's crib and the child was killed as a result. That was widely considered outrageous behavior on the part of the police. But here, the IDF is basically doing the same thing, shelling and bombing positions haphazardly that they think might have hamas in them, yet they are widely given a free pass. That just shouldn't be.

First of all, IDF military operations aren't nearly as haphazard as you seem to believe they are. Moreover I fail to see how doing nothing is an option. Israel putting down its guns isn't going to persuade Hamas to do the same, it would only embolden them. This is a confrontation that was largely unavoidable.

What exactly do you think the goals of this military operation actually are? The IDF is not indiscriminately massacring Arabs, a fair reading of the statistics simply doesn't bare that out.

So far the casualty count speak far louder that they are haphazard (and particularly incidents like the hospitals being hit when they knew they were occupied). I'm being nice interpreting this simply as reckless rather than deliberate. And beyond that, I didn't say do nothing, I said negotiate. In fact, this offensive has cost them more lives than all rocket attacks ever (not just recent ones, EVER). That isn't smart tactics if your goal is to improve safety unless you just like sacrificing your own troops.

And I didn't say they were indiscriminately massacring Arabs (nice completely BS reading of my post though). I'm quite certain they have reasons for every target they make, those reasons have just been shown to be very disturbing wanting on many occasions to the point of being inexcusable.

#3 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

What is the alternative? How else is Israel suppose to be expected to fight this war?

Really honestly, the statistics show they shouldn't be fighting it at all. Military operations only increase the deaths on both sides, and further empower their enemies with more popular support, while negotiation does the opposite, actually reducing the violence, and reducing the number willing to support their enemies. This assumes of course the stated goals of this operation are what they claim, but sadly I'm starting to agree with the skeptics that it is looking increasingly like the stated goals are BS. The IDF is increasingly looking like they are just using the "human shield" argument to absolve themselves of all responsibility and allow them to pursue war completely unburdened. It reminds me of a recent incident where a swat team was serving a warrant, the front door to the residence we blocked, so without looking, they threw a grenade in, only to later find out said block was a child's crib and the child was killed as a result. That was widely considered outrageous behavior on the part of the police. But here, the IDF is basically doing the same thing, shelling and bombing positions haphazardly that they think might have hamas in them, yet they are widely given a free pass. That just shouldn't be.

#4 Edited by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

Right now I side with neither side, because both are acting like homicidal idiots. The average Israeli and the average Palestinian I feel some pity for because they are perpetually trapped by these leaders they naively put in charge who aren't interested in any real solution that is good for both sides, and thus they'll never get it. The really sad thing is this will probably only end when it turns REALLY ugly, and either one side or the other gets wiped out, or they finally snap to their senses and realize they will be wiped out and come to the bargaining table honestly. Right now, we just simply can't get that though because the sides are so grossly mismatched.

#5 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

I would say John Carpenter's The Thing. While I like Alien, and Aliens scared the *bleep* out of me in theater, The Thing remains very creepy and thought provoking even today, which I think makes it the best example of a sci-fi horror story. Even the new one (which is a prequel) is decent, but just can't seem to reach the standard set by the original.

#6 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

@Stesilaus said:
"visual range combat"

When does that EVER happen these days? Our aircraft engage well before they are in visible range.

As the US forces has learned repeatedly, frequently when you're against comparable forces. Now, it is definitely true to say that close combat isn't the only concern, that has also been shown historically, but if I'm to believe the OP analysis, even without the close combat restrict they were getting pwned badly. That said, I have my doubts on this analysis. Still it wouldn't be terribly shocking to find out that F-22 and F-35 development has produced inadequate aircraft compared to contemporary opponents.

#7 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

Yeah, been broken for me for over a week. Can't read my own reviews. Can't read anyone else's either. All the links I click just bounce me to the default user review page for the game which is useless. Using firefox if that makes any difference.

#8 Edited by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

Ah, the good old slippery slope argument (psst, it's a faulty argument). Your government has been banning numerous things in food for quite a long time, and you haven't seen society collapse yet. Trans fats are pretty bad, and unnecessary.

#9 Edited by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -

Yes, the game was Black and White. I played it for about 12 hours combined time... a good chunk of that while I read a book. And then I realized, this game is so boring, for entertainment I'm reading a book. Why the *bleep* am I playing this?

#10 Posted by DerekLoffin (8789 posts) -
Let's see, proper roar, proper looks... hopeful. It will probably end up sucking, but I'll give it a chance.