War, what is it good for?

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:01 am

I should clarify - in regards to dealing with Gaza, those are good ideas for the UK. Practical, useful, and showing intent to aid the people in need and decry war crimes. I only mean the above in regards to disarmament.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:56 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm
If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?
The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?
Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.

Oh, sorry, I missed this. That's great, really is. Except that it means nothing to the state of Israel when they're considering whether or not to keep their nukes. They'd rather have that insurance policy than all the Western support we'll give.

And... I think you've got a bit of an overinflated view of the UK's ability to send gunboats. Y'all have twice as many admirals as active warships.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:50 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am
Not everyone accepts this approach to international relations, and we should fight hard against the view that Bert is advancing. Sorry Bert but your willingness to take this shit is fucked up and you've lost any moral compass, it seems to me.

Then tell us, since you know so much about what NOT to do, what should be done? HOW do you intend to go about convincing Israel and North Korea and Russia and India and Pakistan to unwillingly get rid of their nuclear stockpiles?

You've done an awful lot of criticism. Let's hear what your solution is.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:46 am

Jamie, thing is, you're absolutely right. Having nukes shouldn't mean that a nation gets any sort of moral get-out-of-jail-free card. It shouldn't mean that we allow Israel or anyone else to do whatever they like to attack Iran because they've got nukes.

Well... I should qualify that. You're absolutely right about one thing, and that's that the world would probably be better if nobody had nukes.

But nations do. And if every politician in the West adopted you're approach we'd all be dead. You rely on everybody else in the world doing their part to agree with your ideas, but if any group doesn't, things go south immediately. If the USA, UK, Israel, and all of NATO disarms and gets rid of our nukes, North Korea or someone else who hates America or Israel and has sworn to destroy said nations launches against us. Her allies follow suit. Millions upon millions die.

Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.

I'd love to see your ideals here succeed. I really would. Depose the evil rulers, disarm all the world's nukes, everybody comes together and sings "kumbaya" and makes a worldwide society where no one does any harm to anybody else and everyone works together. But if you think that's even a remote possibility you've got another thing comin', and if you can't factor in reality to your opinions on policy, you've got to change 'em.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:59 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:20 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.
It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.
We had a thing called World War Two so that we could stop them.

They didn't have atom bombs....

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:20 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.
It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.

We had a thing called World War Two so that we could stop them.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am
This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.

It's not my idea, it's the reality of the world we live in. Maybe it can be changed in theory, but it's a coordination problem that is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. If the Nazis had the bomb they would have kept Holocausting.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:16 am

Not everyone accepts this approach to international relations, and we should fight hard against the view that Bert is advancing. Sorry Bert but your willingness to take this shit is fucked up and you've lost any moral compass, it seems to me.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:14 am

This idea of Bert's that once a state has a nuclear weapon they must be permitted to engage in unfettered genocide, is truly fucked up.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:12 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:10 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.
So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??
You can't take away a bomb from someone who has one. They'll nuke you.

I'm not saying this is fair or desirable lol, it's just blatantly obvious.

Again going with the might makes right approach that makes international relations irrelevant.

Might as well just start WW3 now then. Fuck humanity.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:11 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.
If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.
The UK can do unilateral disarmament. It definitely cannot do anything about others' nukes.

Fucking can if I'm UK PM and I put a whole lot of the Royal Navy in the Eastern Med...

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:10 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?
I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.
So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??

You can't take away a bomb from someone who has one. They'll nuke you.

I'm not saying this is fair or desirable lol, it's just blatantly obvious.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?
I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.

So why isn't it equally important to take the bomb AWAY from Israel?

Why are you so happy about attacking a sovereign state that was not attacking anyone? Why such double standards??

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:09 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.
If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.

The UK can do unilateral disarmament. It definitely cannot do anything about others' nukes.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:08 am

And to be clear, I would dismantle rhe UKs nukes irrespective of the stance of other countries, because reducing the amount of nuclear weapons on earth is to humanity's net benefit.

It's the same as unilaterally removing trade barriers if you believe in free trade...

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:07 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am
You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?

I agree on the moral problem. That's a big part of why it would be bad if Iran were to get the bomb.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:06 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.

If I was UK Prime Minister that would be one of my main foreign policy goals.

I would also dismantle the UKs nukes as a matter of urgency.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:04 am

You are arguing for the following concept of international rules of engagement:

1. If you've got nuclear weapons, everyone has to do exactly what you demand.
2. If you've got nuclear weapons, you can kill anyone else who thinks about getting them.
3. If you don't have nuclear weapons, we can kill you if we suspect you might want them.

Don't you see the moral problem?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:00 am

If you want to have a shitfit about how the world is unfair I guess I'm just not interested in that convo. Yup, it'd be better if there were no nukes. Iran getting nukes it didn't have previously seems like a step in the wrong direction.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:58 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 11:53 pm
Esquire Bert:

"Everyone who fucks my mom is entitled to come over every weekend and fuck her again."

"If anyone lusts after my mom, I will kill them".

Nonsense.

You're really grasping for any misunderstanding that lets you keep a childishly simple view of the conflict.

The analogy you made doesn't work in the slightest.

Go ahead and try to take Israel's nukes away lol. You need some other analogy that captures the irreversible nature of WMDs.

War, what is it good for?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?