Thankfully it doesn't happen here very often...................................BUT..................................

 

Why Having the Last Word Is So Important for Some People 

Having the last word for some people means winning the argument. Whilst this clearly isn’t always true, it is a frustrating trait that applies to more than just Wikipedia!

It is worth remembering that the person who wins the debate is not necessarily the person who shouts the loudest, or gets in the last word.

Often a person with this personality is likely to be an egomaniac or bordering on being one. An egomaniac can be defined as a person who is obsessively self-centred or egotistical.

(Have you ever been in an argument where the other won't drop it?)

Insecurity:

Somebody who lacks confidence or self-esteem may try to assert themselves in other ways, by expressing himself or herself in a forceful way.

Arrogance:

A person with extreme arrogance may genuinely not be able to accept that they might be incorrect, or that another person’s opinion is equally as valid as their own. 

Egocentricity:

Some people simply need to be the centre of attention, and will argue black is white in order to keep the spotlight. 

Power:

Having the last word can be perceived as powerful, often by people who lack assertiveness in other areas of their lives.

Anger:

Refusal to debate calmly can be a reaction to feelings of anger, and shouting down an opponent is a way to express their feelings.

Dominance:

As with power, a person who feels the innate need to dominate others or to establish their seniority may do so by insisting they have the final word in any conversation.

https://www.learning-mind.com/having-the-last-word-important-deal/

Ever been in one of those endless conversations where someone needs to have the last word?

The rules of war

These rules apply to both Gaza and Ukraine. PD kindly provided the links to these info sources.

The ICRC has a FAQ page directed to Qs&As about the rules of war:

Even wars have rules. What does that mean?

It means: You do not attack civilians. You limit as much as you can the impact of your warfare on women and children, as well as on other civilians. You treat detainees humanely. You do not torture people.

Here's one Q&A:

Do civilians picking up arms lose their protection against direct attack under IHL (international humanitarian law)?

It depends. IHL defines civilians as anyone who is neither a member of State armed forces, nor a member of an organized armed group with a continuous combat function, nor a participant in a levée en masse.

Civilians are protected against direct attack unless, and for such time, as they directly participate in hostilities. Parties to an armed conflict must take all feasible precautions in determining whether a person is a civilian and, if that is the case, whether he or she is directly participating in hostilities.

In case of doubt, the person in question must be presumed to be a civilian and protected against direct attack. To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly. The ICRC has issued Interpretive Guidance which provides recommendations concerning the interpretation of IHL as it relates to the concept of direct participation in hostilities.

IHL related to modern warfare sieges (pages 1-2 of 16):

The moral factor in war

An NYT opinion by David French, former Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officer embedded with a combat arms unit in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, raises the complex moral issues that Israel is forced to confront:

I know that you can’t simply merge law and tactics and declare that everything that is legally and tactically sound is also moral, much less wise. We veterans know that the challenge for the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza isn’t simply to win the fight with Hamas within the laws of war. There is a third imperative, one that will define the soldiers who fight and the nation they defend for years to come: Do not destroy your soul.

This is much easier said than done. To shrink from evil because the fight will be hard and complex and fraught with risk to soldiers and civilians alike is to both reward barbarism (it sends the signal that sufficient savagery will be rewarded with impunity) and to forsake the sacred duty of protecting your citizens from harm. To lean into the fight, to stretch your violent reach every bit as far as the law allows, can create both an ocean of anguish and bitterness in civilian populations and leave a “bruise on the soul” of the combatants themselves, altering their lives forever.

To illustrate the depth of the problem and its deadly stakes, I want to share two stories from my own unit’s deployment in Diyala Province, Iraq, in 2008. The first occurred on the night of Feb. 10. A roadside bomb had claimed the life of a young sergeant, Corey Spates. He died a week after his first wedding anniversary. Other soldiers were wounded by the blast, and medical evacuation helicopters were coming to collect the wounded.

I was at our headquarters monitoring the unfolding situation through video feeds from nearby aircraft, and that’s when we spotted a small group of what appeared to be young men hiding in an irrigation ditch, directly in the path of the incoming helicopters. We didn’t see weapons, but our video feed was grainy and blurry. Their prone posture matched enemy tactics. We knew Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents often infiltrated our area of operations by crawling through irrigation ditches, and these men were perfectly positioned to make a terrible night even worse, by shooting down the low-flying helicopters that were minutes away.

What do you do? Under the general principles of the laws of war, we had the ability to make sure the helicopters could land safely by opening fire on those shadowy figures. They were exhibiting what we called enemy “TTPs” (tactics, techniques and procedures). But just because you can shoot doesn’t mean you should.

My commander chose a middle way. He ordered a detachment of cavalry troopers to quickly move to investigate, opening themselves up to potential ambush. And when our troopers arrived, they found not armed men, but a small band of terrified middle school-age boys who had heard the blast, run outside to see what happened, and now were cowering in fear. I shudder to think of the consequences had we chosen to open fire — both in the pain we would have inflicted on a community we were trying to protect and on the hearts of the men who would have killed children, even if the law would have permitted the attack.

Does this always mean that the lesson is to demonstrate patience and take extraordinary risks? No. On Sept. 24, 2008, our troopers pursued a car that had escaped from a cordon of soldiers who were seeking to isolate and capture a small band of suspected Al Qaeda insurgents. As the car sped away, the question arose: Could our soldiers engage?

The answer again was no. Though there was a strong argument that the laws of war would permit our troopers to attack, caution was again the order of the day. So they pursued the car, cornered it and my friend Mike Medders moved to investigate and detain the occupants. This time there were no boys present, only terrorists. One of them was wearing a suicide vest. He blew himself up, and my friend suffered mortal wounds. He died as his comrades desperately tried to render medical aid.

There are readers who might consider these two stories — along with the countless similar accounts from our decades of combat in the Middle East — and think, this is just too horrible. It is better not to fight than to face choices so terrible. .... It was a moral imperative to defeat [Al Qaeda suicide bombers] and to give the people of the province the chance to live safe and free.

This is the problem Israeli soldiers and commanders face. They must protect their citizens from savagery. They must comply with the laws of war. And they must make a series of moral choices, under extreme duress, that can define them and their nation — all while they face a terrorist enemy that appears to possess no conscience at all.

We see these dilemmas unfold even now. Ordering large numbers of civilians to leave the zone of conflict risks a humanitarian catastrophe. But if they remain in the line of fire, then the options are worse still. There is a reason, for example, why Hamas wants civilians to stay. The challenge of fighting a pitched battle amid the civilian population will both render Israel’s attack more difficult and take more civilian lives. But refusing to attack and leaving Hamas in control of Gaza would create its own moral crisis.

In December of 1776, at a dark moment in the American Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote one of the most famous sentences in the founding of America. “These are the times that try men’s souls.” He was referring to the despair of potentially losing a war. “Tyranny, like hell,” he wrote, “is not easily conquered.”

Israel is about to embark on a military task that will try its soul, against a hell that is not easily conquered. We can and must talk about tactics and law. They provide an indispensable minimal standard of conduct, but the ultimate course of the conflict will depend on the outcome of countless moral choices, and those choices will be the most difficult of all.

This is frustrating. Questions jump right out:

1. Why is Israel is forced to confront these moral issues, i.e., why wasn't there an enforced peace settlement in place decades ago? 

2. Who and what political leaders in what countries are responsible for the failures to put peace in place? I don't believe that peace was impossible, but in my opinion it was always sabotaged and sacrificed to various agendas, IMO apparently usually less than noble.

3. Why does, as French asserts, the evil Hamas terrorist enemy appear to possess no conscience at all? Are most Hamas leaders and fighters (i) ice-cold, sociopathic narcissist killers or some other variant of mentally ill monster, (ii) desperate people who gave up on the possibility of peace (like I did in 1995*) and just decided to send up a distress signal flare or go out in a blaze of blood and gore, and/or (iii) something else, e.g., enraged religious zealotry? 

* But I could walk away from it unscathed, unlike lots of people trapped in the mess.

4. Why is Hamas in Gaza even in existence as a force capable of attacking and slaughtering innocent civilians? Exactly who is responsible for that, or is that a question that's impossible to answer? 

Opinion | We Need to Reframe the Debate Over Ukraine

 Even with violence returning to the Middle East, Ukraine remains a frontline of defense in a volatile world. But leaders need to start making that case.

Opinion by P. MICHAEL MCKINLEY

P. Michael McKinley is a non-resident senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The unprecedented attack by Hamas on Israel will complicate the debate in the United States and internationally about sustaining assistance for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s aggression. Israel merits the unquestioned support of its allies as it responds to the most significant challenge it has faced since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. But it does not follow that the conflict in Ukraine should fade into the background.

Events in Israel along with other worrying developments — including Azerbaijan’s assault on Nagorno-Karabakh and Serbia’s border build-up with Kosovo — only underscore how quickly the international order we’ve long taken for granted has been undermined since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 20 months ago. The world we’re entering is becoming a more volatile, violent place.

For Western nations who want to forestall that future, the first line of defense remains Ukraine. Israel is receiving support and likely to prevail in its conflict with Hamas, but without continued assistance from the United States and its allies, Ukraine is much less likely to win its war with Russia.

If Ukraine is not to suffer the fate of other “forever wars” and become a secondary priority to a possibly wider conflict in the Middle East, or a global landscape with other pressing demands, U.S. leaders need to recast the case for staying the course on Ukraine. Messaging on Ukraine should include greater realism about the conflict, its complexities, its likely outcome and what it means for global security.

The truth is that sustaining assistance for Ukraine is already a challenge, as much psychological as political. Fatigue has kicked in among Ukraine’s supporters notwithstanding reassuring statements by President Joe Biden and European leaders following the revolt by congressional GOP hardliners in Washington against further financial support for the war effort. In our recent past, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, increasingly came to be described as forgotten wars as they dragged on for many years.

Ukraine should not be seen in the same way. The moment is fast approaching for the Biden administration to strengthen the rationale for sustaining the war effort, by starting first with redefining the strategic commitment of the U.S. and its allies. At the NATO summit in June, it became clear that the allies have yet to provide everything Ukraine needs to significantly improve its battlefield performance. The debate continues over what weapons to supply. Allies also pushed off Ukraine’s NATO membership into an indefinite future.

Supporting Ukraine “whatever it takes” should be understood as part and parcel of supporting our allies globally in an increasingly unstable international environment. Should Ukraine fail, the world will re-enter a period of history, which only receded after 1945, where stronger nations can obliterate weaker ones, redraw boundaries, and drive national identities to extinction, and international extremists can act with impunity. We cannot afford to let that era return.

More on this argument:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/10/middle-east-violence-ukraine-00120709

Putin is also sitting tight in the hopes of a Trump win in 2024. Poland has stopped shipments of arms to Ukraine and Hungary is an unreliable partner. AND should Belarus join Russia's aggression, oh my!

It's time for NATO and the U.S. to give Ukraine what it needs to WIN this war rather than fight for a stalemate.

However, all our attention now is on Israel and Hamas. How easily we are distracted.