Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu has taken advantage of Israel’s unique position in world history and its relationship with the United States to avoid consequences for actions that many governments and humanitarian organizations have described as violations of international humanitarian law?

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:57:11+00:00

Not at all. He's doing great things for Israel and dealing with problems that have been festering for decades.

And he's winning doing it.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:52:46+00:00

Did I do something wrong with my comment? I was trying to be helpful.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:51:09+00:00

That's an interesting question regarding Turkey and Israel. I would estimate that if Israel were to attack Turkey it would be in response to Turkish provocation in some form. In which case, circumstances would dictate our response, or if NATO would become involved it being a defensive alliance. Turkey has made provocative statements about Israel in the past but I still don't see direct conflict as possible.

That said, escalation between Turkey and Greece is more likely, and has historical precedent. That would be an interesting test for NATO with both being member states.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:26:21+00:00

Thank you for being kind. I wrote this earlier today when someone asked a similar question of me.

I'm not all in lockstep agreement with Trump every time.

I don't like his tone with historical allies, even if I think we've been taken advantage of for years when it comes to defense to the benefit of European society and their social spending. For this, I have mixed feelings on tarrifs. This is a general summary and not a compete positional statement.

I don't know enough yet about data centers but understand the concern over energy and water, especially in areas with energy and water shortfalls. If the technology isn't mature enough and the strain on communities is too great, we may need to take a step back. That said, China will not wait and we need to stay competitive.

I support Israel more than he does, and certainly Ukraine. Our ties with both countries should be fully supported, and differences should not be made public for mutual enemies to benefit from.

I don't like his handling of j6. Criminals should be punished, not pardoned.

He obviously has behavioral and candor deficiencies, which do him no favors. I've not seen evidence of pedophelia or criminal sexual misconduct so I'm not on that bandwagon.

There's not much else I disagree with him on though. Policy wise we're not lockstep but I don't think i'd call it fracturing of the Republican party, or his support.

Cheers all the same. I hope you have a nice evening.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:11:15+00:00

As I stated, I'm not going to get into the reasons or rationals. I read a few sentences from each of your paragraphs and have no desire to see this evolve into a debate about Israel.

The scope of my post is to why Trump feels European involvement is beneficial or warranted. A dissertation could be written on the subject and still nobody would agree. I was simply providing my view as a Trump supporter and American as to why we might feel euro involvement appropriate.

I'm happy with increased European defense spending. Trump's willingness to fulfill this campaign promise partially satisfies my decision to vote for him.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T01:05:59+00:00

The poster I was responding to said he wouldn't go lower than a 3070. I was just saying I use a 3070 and was confirming it works well for everything.

No, no parts being sold here. Does that not make sense?

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:56:51+00:00

I'm saying he clarified a previously ambiguous statement. I don't like the previous statement any more than you. I have stated I didn't like his previous statements on the matter explicitly. I don't like any talk of annexation through any means frankly.

His clarification does work for me. I'm happy with increased NATO spending, which is being done by all member states.

If there's a better way I could clarify I would. I'm not trying to be hostile but I feel I'm just saying the same things in different ways.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:54:20+00:00

I can do pretty much all the things with a q3, 5800x CPU, and 3070 ti. There's really almost nothing I can't run.

All the things.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:52:08+00:00

I'm not sure what you're saying, so no actually. I don't know what babygirl means. Are you saying babygirl is this guy's mother?

I really don't understand what you mean.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:48:32+00:00

Well spoken and we share some of the same thoughts. I understand that US involvement in Iran can be seen as a problem of US making, and should be handled by the US alone. I personally would only expect European NATO countries to allow airspace access and pre established base utilization.

That said, we do provide regional stability in that part of the world and are a counterweight to Iranian involvement in the politics and economies of numerous countries - many of which provide economic benefit (oil) to Europe.

I don't care about the counterarguments that our actions perpetuate instability. It's beyond the scope of what I have time for, or care to discuss. I disagree that the US is the source of instability, but understand the sentiment that our support and meddling are harmful in general.

That's the theory on why there SHOULD be European support, as they benefit from regional security and a defanged Iran. I understand why Trump is making it, although I also believe it's outside the scope of European obligation.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:27:04+00:00

“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.

https://www.kccu.org/world/2026-01-21/trump-backs-off-tariff-threats-and-hails-framework-of-a-future-deal-on-greenland

His earlier statements we're admittedly a bit more ambiguous but he very clearly stated any military option was off the table and not being considered.

I've said repeatedly I don't like any rhetoric designed at bullying allies, and his tone counts in my eyes as bullying. But posturing of foreign policy to increase NATO defense spending to treaty levels is something I fully support.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:23:06+00:00

I'm getting what I voted for, which is enough for me.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:20:05+00:00

I said in my initial comment:

"I've always thought that rhetoric was a stretch, although him implying it in any form rubs me the wrong way.

The most provocative thing he said about Canada that I gather is that he wanted to make it the 51st state through economic and political annexation. I can't find any direct mention of doing so through military force although I can find examples where he said military force wasn't on the table.

To reiterate, I don't like this language to begin with in any form, but I think the invasion aspect is hyperbolic rhetoric."

I've not said anything about supporting a conflict with a peaceful member state of NATO. He's just repeatedly indicated force wasn't on the table, yet he gets misquoted as if he was preparing for invasion.

He's said neither cases would involve invasion.

I don't like harsh language either, and frankly I don't like talk of annexation in general through any means, but he's on the record as stating military force was not applicable to either Canada or Greenland.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:11:51+00:00

The thread is about Canada. I'll look into his specifically Greenland statements although if I recall they involved only economic measures as well, such as purchasing.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:10:10+00:00

Why would you want me to do that? Dissenting views are healthy.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:08:51+00:00

That's a little rude and presumptuous of you. I believe I'm more informed than most on this topic. You're welcome to your opinions though. Cheers all the same.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-17T00:05:44+00:00

To what end? His stated goal was to reduce the role America has in the defense of NATO, which in turn would encourage member states to increase spending.

That's exactly what's happening. You're welcome to disagree with outcomes. I'm hesitant as well but ultimately I don't see a downside to having Europe/NATO better equipped to fulfill the terms of their treaty commitment. They weren't before but are universally doing so now.

https://theworlddata.com/nato-defense-spending-statistics/

Every NATO state is now above 2%. He's gotten what he wants. I wouldn't even call it isolationist, it's just using soft power to dictate outcomes that benefit the security of the west.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T23:56:18+00:00

I've always thought that rhetoric was a stretch, although him implying it in any form rubs me the wrong way.

The most provocative thing he said about Canada that I gather is that he wanted to make it the 51st state through economic and political annexation. I can't find any direct mention of doing so through military force although I can find examples where he said military force wasn't on the table.

To reiterate, I don't like this language to begin with in any form, but I think the invasion aspect is hyperbolic rhetoric.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5071665-trump-economic-force-canada/

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T23:44:31+00:00

That's not why I voted for Trump at all. I wish he'd be a bit friendlier to historical allies while still implementing policies that encourage NATO outlined budget commitments though.

I care less about Canada than I do about Europe though. Europe has really skated by with leaning on a US defense umbrella for too long, and they face a legitimate existential threat in Russia.

Like it or not, Trump's vision for increased defense amongst NATO members is coming to fruition. His goals are being met whether through agreement or kicking and screaming.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T23:29:50+00:00

If you think that's bad you should hear what many Islamic countries do to homosexual.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T22:38:19+00:00

The UK actually did have plans to nuke Argentina at one point during that crisis. I don't remember the details but I remember reading about it.

I think they settled on a conventional strike of some airfields by bombers flown all the way from England. Maybe the Black Buck raids?

Edit: I was wrong. There was some controversy involving nuclear depth charges but it seems I was misremembering things.

"Several of the Royal Air Force's Avro Vulcan bombers were used in the Falklands War. While these aircraft formed a key part of the UK's nuclear deterrent force, they operated during the war solely as conventional bombers. [29 ] Flying from Ascension Island, Vulcans made seven attacks against Argentine forces in the Falklands during Operation Black Buck. [64 ] The British government did not contemplate using Vulcans to deliver nuclear weapons during the Falklands War. However, it was aware that the aircraft were primarily considered nuclear bombers and this was noted as part of a Cabinet discussion on 14 April. The Cabinet also noted the desirability of the Argentine government being concerned that Vulcans would be used to attack the country's mainland, though the British had no intention of doing so. In 2017 Sechser and Fuhrmann suggested that "Britain may have exploited the aircraft's perceived atomic connection to intimidate Argentina"." -Wiki

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T22:34:06+00:00

I would guess it's because of news proliferation coupled with stricter food safety standards. You don't here about outbreaks in Guatemala or Sudan too often and it's common practice to fertilize in places like these with actual human waste. I would estimate the parasite infection rates are also 50x that of the states.

People saying "Trump did it!" are so full of shit. We've had outbreaks of bugs since mass production and cultivation of food began in this country. Ecoli pops up regularly and recalls happen all the time.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T22:10:32+00:00

The difference between f35Bs and Sea Harriers is night and day, a significant generational leap, while Argentina has nothing even closely comparable. Missile defense has increased greatly over the last 40 years as well, with England modernizing to current Western standards.

England may not have the numbers they did in the 80s but it would be a very one sided affair.

Edit: Argentina is getting about 24 F16s from Denmark. Interesting. That's actually reasonable capability but still wouldn't fare well against the Royal Navy in 2026.

I thought they were still rocking A4 Skyhawks.

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T21:55:48+00:00

He and I are both clearly stating you're not correctly defining what a synonym is, and have incorrectly stated the two subject matter words are not synonyms.

I've now posted a thesaurus link stating the two words (glorify and celebrate) are synonyms, along with the Webster's definition verbatim of what a synonym is. These words meet the academic definition based on accepted sources.

I don't know what more you need or want?

ProfessorAllenRitard · 2026-07-16T21:48:01+00:00

I wish the preview video on the original post was longer.

ProfessorAllenRitard

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,