• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel AF uses new US-supplied smart bomb

Yes -- the US government sends money to Israel, where it then is used to by US military items from US companies.

That being the case, there is most certainly a 'profit' as the US companies would not sell the items if there were not.

So after all is said and done there really is no profit margin just a simulacrum of one that the taxpayers support.
 
So after all is said and done there really is no profit margin just a simulacrum of one that the taxpayers support.
Sure there is -- the arms manufacturers make money.
Nothing new there -- that how all foerign military aid works (save that which involves items from current inventory).
 
I told you how I interpeted the word, given the context of its use -- and that interpretation is, undeniably, correct.
You can like it or not - I don't care - but either way, get the burr out of your ash.

No, I showed you exactly the definition, supply is to provide. We provide the weaponry. It's you whom decided to be obtuse.

What makes you think that 'we' aren't?
And lets be clear here -- when 'we' sell weapons to Israel, unless it is a sale of items already in inventory, the 'we' that sells them is actually the US company that manufactures said weapons. The profit margin is then based on the terms of the procurement contract.

A US company can not sell US military weapons without the approval of the government. No way no how. And I guess it shouldn't matter if we make a profit or not, we're not mercenaries and we're not the world police. People need to deal with their own problems it's not up to the US taxpayer to fund it.

Killing civilinas in raids against military targets is not 'using them against civilians' and it is not 'making war' against civilians.
So, your concern here is unfounded.

It's a "raid" in the sense that it's a bombing; air raid maybe. Look at what just happened. Some Hezbola r-tards bomb some crap in Israel and kill 2 or so people. Israel bombs a civilian sector to get at some Hezbola jerks and in the process kills hundreds of people, many of whom are civilian. Is my concern really unfounded? Israel has a long track record of attacking civilians. They have demonstrated that they have no remorse or hesitation to take out a bunch of civilians to get at a few terrorists. Is my concern unfounded? Not according to recorded history.

That might be your opinion, but it doesnt equate to a 'good' (read: rational, supportable) reason.

We have 'supplied' weapons to all of our allies, and have done so for a very long time. Israel is no different than any one of them, and so for your argument to mean anything, you must also then argue against 'supplying' -all- of our allies.

Let them all fund their own crap. Let them all build their own crap. Let their people put up the money for the resources, the capabilities, and the production of their military. I'm not here to subsidize this for anyone other than the US military. And I especially don't want our hardware going to civilian destruction campaigns. We should have no part of that. If Israel and Palestine want to behave in that manner, that's their choice. But that action gets them cut off from American honey.
 
Sure there is -- the arms manufacturers make money.
Nothing new there -- that how all foerign military aid works (save that which involves items from current inventory).

Okay fine so the profit margin comes at the expense of the US taxpayer.
 
No, I showed you exactly the definition, supply is to provide. We provide the weaponry. It's you whom decided to be obtuse.
So, keep the burr in your butt -- but please, wash your hands after you scratch.
:roll:

A US company can not sell US military weapons without the approval of the government. No way no how.
That's relevant.... how?

And I guess it shouldn't matter if we make a profit or not, we're not mercenaries and we're not the world police. People need to deal with their own problems it's not up to the US taxpayer to fund it.
So, we should not give or sell weapons to anyone?

It's a "raid" in the sense that it's a bombing; air raid maybe. Look at what just happened. Some Hezbola r-tards bomb some crap in Israel and kill 2 or so people. Israel bombs a civilian sector to get at some Hezbola jerks and in the process kills hundreds of people, many of whom are civilian.
This is no different than bombs meant for German factories hitting German schools or houses. The schools and the civilians in it were not 'targeted', the bimbs were not 'used' on them, and we did not "make war" or "encourage war" on civilians.

Is my concern really unfounded? Israel has a long track record of attacking civilians. They have demonstrated that they have no remorse or hesitation to take out a bunch of civilians to get at a few terrorists.
See above.

Let them all fund their own crap. Let them all build their own crap. Let their people put up the money for the resources, the capabilities, and the production of their military. I'm not here to subsidize this for anyone other than the US military
Its very fortunate that you were not in charge, 1940-1991.
 
Last edited:
Okay fine so the profit margin comes at the expense of the US taxpayer.
Its been going on for several generations -- rather disingenuous to complain about it now.
 
So, keep the burr in your butt -- but please, wash your hands after you scratch.
:roll:

It's a matter of you being wrong and then being obtuse more than anything else. You can pretend you didn't know, but I even gave you the definition of "supply". Sorry, but you're just wrong. You can drop this at any point you choose as well.

That's relevant.... how?

It was a response to your assertion that US companies sell it

So, we should not give or sell weapons to anyone?

Under most conditions, no we shouldn't.

This is no different than bombs meant for German factories hitting German schools or houses. The schools and the civilians in it were not 'targeted', the bimbs were not 'used' on them, and we did not "make war" or "encourage war" on civilians.

You sure about that? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? what was that? That was a purposeful assault on the civilian populace. It was meant to inflict the highest number of causality possible. It's nothing to be encouraged. And it's not a tactic that you keep up for years and decades on end. Else you will find yourself entrenched in a war in which both sides are wrong and both sides have valid reason for anger. Israel has hit plenty of civilian targets on purpose to get to the terrorists, they're not innocent. There are no innocents in this war.

See above.

Indeed...see above

Its very fortunate that you were not in charge, 1940-1991.

Yeah, I mean all the black ops we did (Iran/Contra, things of that nature). Really worked out well for us...oh crap it pretty much always back fires. We've had a series of unfortunate leaders since the time of FDR (who was one of the worst Presidents). We shouldn't stick our noses in other's business. Let other people deal with their own crap, we need to quit spending tax payer money on others and focus on our crap.
 
Cluster bombs have there use in certain scenarios, though not in densely populated areas.

- Dumb Bombs

They were used to great affect in Desert Storm.

Paul.
They were also highly effective in fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo.
 
It's a matter of you being wrong...
Except that I wasn't.

It was a response to your assertion that US companies sell it
Which usually the case -- though, its still irrelevant to the point. The US government giving permission to a company to sell isnt the same thing as the US government selling the items it has in inventory or supplying the funding for the nation in question to buy the items.

You sure about that? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? what was that?
Its not analogous to what Israel does, whereas the bombing of German factories (etc) is. Did you want to address the relevant analogy, or concede the point and then discuss somethng irrelevant to the issue you brought up?

Yeah, I mean all the black ops we did (Iran/Contra, things of that nature).
I was thnking more of the lend-lease programs to the UK and our other allies, the post-war MAP that re-armed Europe, the sales and supplies od US military equipment during the cold war to counter the USSR, etc.

You knew that, right?

Now, did you want to argue that it would have been better had we done none of those things. or not?

We shouldn't stick our noses in other's business. Let other people deal with their own crap, we need to quit spending tax payer money on others and focus on our crap.
Had we done that 1940-1991 we'd be speaking Russian and/or German.
 
Sorry - I thought you might have had a point attached to your pointing out that fact.

Knocking down your short sighted rhetoric was my point.:mrgreen:
 
Except that I wasn't.

Not according to the dictionary. So I wonder who is right?

Which usually the case -- though, its still irrelevant to the point. The US government giving permission to a company to sell isnt the same thing as the US government selling the items it has in inventory or supplying the funding for the nation in question to buy the items.

The point is the movement of US military hardware to others whom are not the US military (or part of the United States).

Its not analogous to what Israel does, whereas the bombing of German factories (etc) is. Did you want to address the relevant analogy, or concede the point and then discuss somethng irrelevant to the issue you brought up?

You love rhetoric games, I'm replying to what you write and you say it's irrelevant. I say under most circumstances, we should not be supplying our military hardware to others. Especially in wars in which both sides specifically target civilians. You wanted to claim we didn't target civilians, I pointed out that this was wrong; that we have. You wanted to bring up a situation which was beneficial to have sold weapons to allies. I pointed out situations in which it backfired. You want to say your points are relevant and mine are irrelevant even though they are providing counter to what you say...but that's why you want to blanket statement them away. It's all very counter-productive in the end. You can engage in this debate, or you can continue as you are. The choice is yours.

I was thnking more of the lend-lease programs to the UK and our other allies, the post-war MAP that re-armed Europe, the sales and supplies od US military equipment during the cold war to counter the USSR, etc.

You knew that, right?

I was thinking the countless times we've stuck our noses where they don't belong and it blew up in our face.

But you knew that, right?

Now, did you want to argue that it would have been better had we done none of those things. or not?

I'm not arguing absolutes, I'm arguing trends. I have stated before that under most circumstances we should not be supplying our military hardware to others. Especially in wars which specifically target civilians as the Israelis and Palestinians do.

Had we done that 1940-1991 we'd be speaking Russian and/or German.

That's absurd. It's the same claim when people say "if the terrorists win, we're gonna be Muslim". No way. We were directly attacked by the Japanese and that got us into WW II, so no matter what we were in that war. Russia posed direct threats to us during the Cold War, so we had proper ways to move there. What the hell is the point of this? Is it just hyperbole and plea to emotion to try to deflect the topic at hand? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer is "yes".
 
...

You sure about that? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? what was that? That was a purposeful assault on the civilian populace. It was meant to inflict the highest number of causality possible. It's nothing to be encouraged.
Actually the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo worked pretty well. The Allies won, did they not. Punishing the citizens had a lot to do with their acquiescence after the surrenders?
 
Last edited:
Actually the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo worked pretty well. The Allies won, did they not. Punishing the citizens had a lot to do with their acquiescence after the surrenders?

Short term, but it's a horrible horrible method to employ. And definitely not a long term solution as Israel has taken it to be. It did work specifically in our case, it's not working in this case.
 
Not according to the dictionary. So I wonder who is right?
You know as well as I do that I am right.

The point is the movement of US military hardware to others whom are not the US military (or part of the United States).
Which you seem to only have an issue with if the US taxpayer is involved. What you posted doesnt related to that.

You love rhetoric games, I'm replying to what you write and you say it's irrelevant.
Your post didnt have anything to do with what I said -- and was therefore irrelevant. Israel's attacks on Hamas, et al, are similar to the US raids on Germany, where civilian deaths were incidental, not deliberate. Your discussion of the firebombing of Tokyo isnt relevant to that as they arent similar to te raids on German indurety, or the Israeli raids on Hamas.

But you know that, which is why you wont address the relevant analogy I made.

Which really says all that needs to be said.

:bootyshake
 
You know as well as I do that I am right.

I'm gonna go with the dictionary on this one. You misinterpreted the function of the word; but I had shown exactly what the word means. You're merely continuing your obtuse behavior.

Which you seem to only have an issue with if the US taxpayer is involved. What you posted doesnt related to that.

When it comes to the military, the tax payer is always involved. Who do you think pays for the government contracts that the private sector gets to build military equipment? The tax payer is always involved.

Israel's attacks on Hamas, et al, are similar to the US raids on Germany, where civilian deaths were incidental, not deliberate.

That's your opinion. To me it seems well more like the firebombings of Tokyo, but with a lot more malice involved. They know damned well the civilians are there, they just have no moral objections with blowing them to hell to get to the terrorists. This is well known, be it apartment complexes or picnics or weddings; they'll go after whatever it takes to get the terrorists and kill whomever they have to in order to get the terrorists. They know full well what they're doing.

Your discussion of the firebombing of Tokyo isnt relevant to that as they arent similar to te raids on German indurety, or the Israeli raids on Hamas.

It's as relivant as your likening this to German industry. First off, this ain't no world war against a huge industrial and military power the likes of Nazi Germany. You're picking on civilians and guerrila soldiers. It's much more akin to the firebombing of Tokyo than it is to taking out the military machine of Germany.

But you know that, which is why you wont address the relevant analogy I made.

Done and done. The attacking of German infrastructure was done to end the production capacities for the army. Palestine is in no way comparable to the military industrial complex of Nazi Germany. They don't have the resources, the factories, or the technology to be even close. There is less in common between the Palestine and the dismantling of the German war machine than there is with Palestine and the firebombing of Tokyo. Especially since both that and Israeli response work for the maximum amount of civilian causality.

Which really says all that needs to be said.

:bootyshake

Yeah, real mature there. It just goes to show you have nothing in your argument, but if it makes you happy have at it.
 
I'm gonna go with the dictionary on this one. You misinterpreted the function of the word; but I had shown exactly what the word means. You're merely continuing your obtuse behavior.
You still know I'm right.

When it comes to the military, the tax payer is always involved. Who do you think pays for the government contracts that the private sector gets to build military equipment? The tax payer is always involved.
Talk about being obtuse...
Tell me:
When the Dutch, with their own money, bought new F16s from General Dynamics, after approval from Congress, how was the US taxpayer involved?

That's your opinion.
And it is correct.

To me it seems well more like the firebombings of Tokyo, but with a lot more malice involved.
Unsupportable.

They know damned well the civilians are there, they just have no moral objections with blowing them to hell to get to the terrorists.
No different than the US bombing of Germany.

It's as relivant as your likening this to German industry. First off, this ain't no world war against a huge industrial and military power the likes of Nazi Germany.
Hmm... speaking of obtuseness... let's examine yours:

The targtets we hit in Germany were military targets. Civilians were killed when we hit them. That doesnt equate to us making war on civilians.

The Israelis are doing the exact same thing -- hitting military targets, kowing that civilians would be killed. That, similerly, doesnt equate to makinr war on civilians.

Yeah, real mature there. It just goes to show you have nothing in your argument,
As the desert said to the grain of sand.
 
You merely have preconcieved notions of how you wish to structure an argument. Therefore, you can't accept counter arguments (much like you clearly being wrong about the function, form, and definition of a word). You claim this is likable to taking out the German military complex, but the two are worlds apart. There's no formal military Israel is fighting, there's no factory that they're bombing. They're bombing civilian areas, not factories, not production capabilities. They are targeting civilian areas with full knowledge that they are killing many many civilians in the hope that maybe they get a terrorist in that. As Cardinal said in the other thread, those responsible for the attack are going to be long gone by the time the retaliatory missiles get there. Israel knows this too, so the point is merely to inflict damage. That has well more in common with the firebombing of Tokyo than it does with the bombing of production facilities in Germany. You merely reiterate the same thing over and over because your argument can not stand the challenge. You based the whole of it on this analogy, and if the analogy is wrong your argument falls apart. Thus you can't let it be wrong, you have to stubbornly hold on to the argument even in the face of being completely wrong (like you were about the definition of "supply").

Israel is not hitting military targets, they are bombing civilian areas. That's it. They know exactly what they are doing, they have no moral objections to it. They should do it with their own damned **** and not things they buy from us. We should not be supplying them with anything, not in a war which specifically targets civilians.
 
You merely have preconcieved notions of how you wish to structure an argument.
Funny -- I thought that countering a relevant point with another relevant point was pretty standard.

From now on, I will counter all of your 'point's with "Orange! Blue! Pepsi!"

If you can't hande those counterpoints, I guess its due to your preconceptions.

Therefore, you can't accept counter arguments (much like you clearly being wrong about the function, form, and definition of a word).
Blue!

You claim this is likable to taking out the German military complex, but the two are worlds apart. There's no formal military Israel is fighting, there's no factory that they're bombing.
Green!

They're bombing civilian areas, not factories, not production capabilities. They are targeting civilian areas with full knowledge that they are killing many many civilians in the hope that maybe they get a terrorist in that.
Pink!

As Cardinal said in the other thread, those responsible for the attack are going to be long gone by the time the retaliatory missiles get there. Israel knows this too, so the point is merely to inflict damage. That has well more in common with the firebombing of Tokyo than it does with the bombing of production facilities in Germany.
Grape popsicles!!

You merely reiterate the same thing over and over because your argument can not stand the challenge.
Grape popsicles!!

You based the whole of it on this analogy, and if the analogy is wrong your argument falls apart. Thus you can't let it be wrong, you have to stubbornly hold on to the argument even in the face of being completely wrong (like you were about the definition of "supply").
Wet kleenex!!

Israel is not hitting military targets, they are bombing civilian areas. That's it. They know exactly what they are doing, they have no moral objections to it. They should do it with their own damned **** and not things they buy from us. We should not be supplying them with anything, not in a war which specifically targets civilians.
Pan pizza!

There -- you have been soundly and thoroughly defeated.
You not understanding how is a result of your preconceptions.

:roll:
 
Your immaturity negates anything you've done. The whole of your argument comes down to this. You have formed an opinion (one in which has been demonstrated false) and your debate style comes down to you saying "no I'm right" all the time; that's it. It's useless tripe, and nothing more. When I show your analogy is wrong you say "no, I'm right". When I show you the proper definition of a word you say "no, I'm right". That's it, that's the whole of your debate skills and it's all documented in this thread.

You can grow up and debate like and adult, or continue with what you're doing. The choice is yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom