|
TGLT posted:If Biden wanted to put actual pressure on Israel he could, instead of letting Blinken go out there talking about how there are no red lines while they pointedly refuse to call publicly for a ceasefire. He did it in 2021 and it worked, because at the end of the day Israel is a client state. Israel cannot do this without US backing. It's a bit more complicated then that because of how polarized US politics is, that the Israeli lobbying is disproportionately effective. See for example what went on under Obama where Bibi was interfering a lot in domestic US affairs and relations between Obama and Bibi were very cold.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
zoux posted:How much new foreign aid has the US sent since October 7th? Legislatively in Congress additional aid to Israel seems to be held up due to disagreements on whether to bundle it with Ukraine funding or pass it separately. I'm not sure what Biden is or isn't doing or can do by himself using executive powers. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-block-republican-bid-aid-israel-not-ukraine-2023-11-07/ quote:
gurragadon fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
It is not complicated. It is a moral position to do anything within your power to not support and stop a genocide from happening if possible. Joe Biden can do this, more than anyone else in the world. The fact that he is not speaks to the moral cowardice of America's officials on both sides of the aisle, and the complicit Western media in its coverage. It does not matter at all what a hypothetical future Trump 2nd term will mean when civilians are dying now and the Democrats in office are doing nothing to stop it. Every minute that passes while it continues degrades any moral argument they may have for continuing to support them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
zoux posted:How much new foreign aid has the US sent since October 7th? We send $3.8 billion annually, and Biden wants to send at least $14.3 billion more as a result of the events of October 7. It's waiting on congressional approval. Source: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/04/us-israel-aid-military-funding-chart
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:I'm not saying that Biden is doing everything he could, just that it would take a lot more than that, and that the administration has gone far beyond that level of resistance Reagan showed. It's just not enough this time. He needs to do a lot more. I would love to see some evidence of that because all I've seen so far is extremely vague non-specific gesticulations towards humanitarian concerns, paired with him refusing to believe the death toll despite state department saying to a House panel that - if anything - it's an undercount while his security council spokesman says there are no red lines. There's been some anonymous griping but I've yet to see any evidence of pressure put on Netanyahu even on par with an angry phone call. The Biden administration won't even let the billions in funding it has requested be subject to the same scrutiny Ukranian funding has received. Raenir Salazar posted:It's a bit more complicated then that because of how polarized US politics is, that the Israeli lobbying is disproportionately effective. See for example what went on under Obama where Bibi was interfering a lot in domestic US affairs and relations between Obama and Bibi were very cold. It really isn't that complicated. A ceasefire polls well, but beyond that even a politician has to be held accountable to some moral standard. TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's a bit more complicated then that because of how polarized US politics is, that the Israeli lobbying is disproportionately effective. See for example what went on under Obama where Bibi was interfering a lot in domestic US affairs and relations between Obama and Bibi were very cold. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the major US political parties are polarized on the issue of military aid to Israel, or to any other regime that we support for that matter BUUNNI fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
TGLT posted:If Biden wanted to put actual pressure on Israel he could, instead of letting Blinken go out there talking about how there are no red lines while they pointedly refuse to call publicly for a ceasefire. He did it in 2021 and it worked, because at the end of the day Israel is a client state. Israel cannot do this without US backing. The 2021 ceasefire isn't generally thought to be the result of pressure from Biden. The Israeli side wasn't particularly interested in escalating further to begin with. They bombed Gaza to their satisfaction, and once they figured they'd achieved their immediate military objectives they let Egypt and Qatar negotiate a ceasefire for them. That was a big part of why they were caught so off-guard just two years later: they thought they'd substantially damaged Hamas' ability to wage war and broken Hamas' will to fight. Hell, even your second article quotes a university professor saying that both sides already wanted the ceasefire and that international pressure was just a "fig leaf" they used to politically justify accepting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Had a bunch of thoughts/things to respond to I split into two posts for readability purposes. Hope nobody minds.zoux posted:[in response to a contention Israel needs the US's backing] Where it gets complicated is, a lot of countries would be considering war with Israel right now if they didn't have an ironclad alliance with the US that made attacking them entirely suicidal. But if they didn't have the US backing them up, the thought that they could end up under assault from their neighbors if they went too far could be enough for Israel to moderate its behavior. However, Israel has nuclear weapons, and it is suspected they have a relatively loose doctrine with them, so it's not really clear attacking them is non-suicidal in any case... One very dark way you could look at all this: the US is the force that makes sure Israel doesn't end up in a position to lose a war, because that would be an extremely dangerous situation. I don't think US leadership has been very hesitant to support Israel at all - but if they were, I wonder if that blackmail/madman element would start to come into play. Raenir Salazar posted:It's a bit more complicated then that because of how polarized US politics is, that the Israeli lobbying is disproportionately effective. See for example what went on under Obama where Bibi was interfering a lot in domestic US affairs and relations between Obama and Bibi were very cold. Like, take yourself out of the American "should I vote for Dems" context right now, and leave out whatever blood is personally on our own hands - if you lived in a non-aligned country, especially in the region, which party would you rather have running the United States? Democrats winning matters. If doing the right thing would put the government in the hands of radical conservatives, then you are between a rock and a hard place, because doing the right thing is going to lead to the country doing a lot of wrong things (on top of the many inevitable wrong things it was already going to do). The problem is not in Joe Biden's specific actions, and thinking of that way ignores systemic realities of the US government - if Amy Klobuchar, or Marco Rubio, or Bernie Sanders had been President since 2021, I don't think the current situation in Gaza would be meaningfully different, nor would the US government's current response. The problems are... 1 - the very idea of having superpower countries that can put their thumb on the scale in any conflict, 2 - that said superpowers tend to do so amorally or immorally, 2 - that one of the political parties in this particular superpower is fascist and has a bizarre obsession with installing a volatile and incompetent executive, 3 - that US public opinion massively favors Israel due to decades of soft propaganda, and 4 - the existence of nuclear weapons. A potential problem is... (A) Biden is wrong that that pressuring Israel further will cost him the election, and is doing this for nothing. Sadly, I don't know that this is true. There are not currently single-issue Israel voters, but I think that's only because the parties have historically agreed about Israel. If that weren't the case, I think there would be a lot. There's over twice as many Jews as Arabs in the US, a higher percentage have citizenship, and their ranks include a lot more high-octane donors and lobbyists. Yeah, a lot of American Jews are not pro-Israel, but, you know, a lot are, and a substantial subset of them really, really are, to the point where it is as important to their self-identity as the US. Dem voters are well represented among them and they would be lost, not just in 2024 but likely forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The 2021 ceasefire isn't generally thought to be the result of pressure from Biden. The Israeli side wasn't particularly interested in escalating further to begin with. They bombed Gaza to their satisfaction, and once they figured they'd achieved their immediate military objectives they let Egypt and Qatar negotiate a ceasefire for them. That was a big part of why they were caught so off-guard just two years later: they thought they'd substantially damaged Hamas' ability to wage war and broken Hamas' will to fight. Are you referring to the professor who's making a moral point by calling it a "fig-leaf"? Even so, at least in 2021 he called for a ceasefire but during this conflict he instead publicly argues there is no possibility of one while John Kirby is out there calling it inappropriate. None of this supports the idea he's really putting any kind of pressure on the Israeli government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I would love to see some evidence of [Biden pressuring Israel privately] because all I've seen so far is extremely vague non-specific gesticulations towards humanitarian concerns, paired with him refusing to believe the death toll despite state department saying to a House panel that - if anything - it's an undercount while his security council spokesman says there are no red lines. There's been some anonymous griping but I've yet to see any evidence of pressure put on Netanyahu even on par with an angry phone call. The NYT's Tom Friedman, whom Biden is known to take advice from and bounce ideas off of*, and whom he generally agrees with on foreign policy, has made an unprecedented rhetorical push from high-level media against Israeli aggression. * And I know that is a horrifying thought, but I suppose it's better than the random retired executives Trump had for informal advisors. You can also point to things like Sen. Durbin directly calling for a ceasefire - he is as establishment as it gets, so his call for a ceasefire suggests that opposition to Israel's actions is growing within the party, and that perhaps the waters are being tested to gauge public reactions to these kinds of calls. I know that none of this is direct evidence of Biden's pressure campaign, but considering the entire reason he is taking his pro-Israel stance is politics, that would make sense, because the whole point of what he's doing is for people who want Hamas destroyed now now now to not know he's doing it. TGLT posted:The Biden administration won't even let the billions in funding it has requested be subject to the same scrutiny Ukranian funding has received. quote:It really isn't that complicated. A ceasefire polls well, but beyond that even a politician has to be held accountable to some moral standard. Additionally some people have no real conception of the conflict and have a "can't just everyone get along?" attitude, and are not interpreting "a ceasefire" to mean "the US puts immense, direct pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire." But if you had an actual ceasefire, and it was actually explained in the media what was happening, in a specific international-law sense, and in the sense of prosecuting a war to destroy Hamas, and what the US's role in it was - and keep in mind, to half the country it's going to be explained by right wing media - I don't think you are going to find that action to be nearly as popular as the vague idea of "a ceasefire" currently polls. This poo poo all sucks but I am also pretty sure it's all true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
TGLT posted:None of this supports the idea he's really putting any kind of pressure on the Israeli government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Are you referring to the professor who's making a moral point by calling it a "fig-leaf"? "Fig leaf" usually doesn't refer to anything about morality. Instead, it refers to a way to cover up or distract from something embarrassing. In this case, the embarrassing thing would be that both sides privately wanted a ceasefire, even as they were making loud public pronouncements about how they would certainly destroy their foes this time for sure, and therefore it was convenient for them to blame the ceasefire on international pressure in order to protect their domestic images.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
I think there's two levels of culpability, in terms of the current state of the conflict, that you can put on Biden: one is that he's fine with the war, or outright approves of it, and is happy that the Good Guys are getting the terrorists. The other is that he recognizes the war is a political disaster for him, and geopolitically dangerous, and much bloodier than he or the public prefer, and that he wants it to end, but hasn't been able to take the right tack to do so, perhaps out of political cowardice. I think the second is fair enough; the former is just kind of drawing devil horns on a caricature of the man (or, being overly cynical about the personal character of powerful people in general - remember this branch of the conversation started when we read a story about loving Reagan having a human reaction to something and acting decently.) You could also disapprove of Biden's handling as a failure of the categorical imperative, and that it's the right thing to call Israel out and start to break the cycle of blind US support, even if it doesn't do much to stop the war and/or results in Republicans taking over, leading to potentially more war. I don't agree with that because of how extreme Republicans are on climate, democracy and human rights, but it's a position I can somewhat understand. (e: Also it is pretty much in conflict with the entire idea of "politics" since they have existed, all the way back to Hammurabi.) Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the major US political parties are polarized on the issue of military aid to Israel, or to any other regime that we support for that matter Sure they are, its a zero sum game where whichever party is less "strong" on issues regarding Israel and supporting them are hurt more electorally. If Dems were much more dominant, Israeli lobbying would be much less effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sure they are, its a zero sum game where whichever party is less "strong" on issues regarding Israel and supporting them are hurt more electorally. If Dems were much more dominant, Israeli lobbying would be much less effective. I feel like if the "powers that be" were really exercising their will on this issue, the US and China would be much closer and friendlier, because the relationship between the two countries has made the capital class ungodly amounts of money. War is profitable, but some contracts for General Dynamics to build submarines to defend Taiwan wouldn't make up for the gigantic loss of economic opportunity a US-China war would cause. Obviously, though, it goes both ways - when politicians talk poo poo about China, it gins up public anxiety about China, and then that just makes talking poo poo about China more politically advantageous, and so on... and that's the fault of politicians, and their trademark myopia, always laser focused on the next election at the expense of pretty much all else. Really, we shouldn't really expect any different, when the slightest shift can make so many aspects of US policy do a complete 180. This feedback-loop dynamic means that when a politician goes all-out in China-bashing, like Trump did, it can shift the Overton window on the issue a whole bunch. So, Biden could be, to some degree, shifting public opinion on Israel right now, rather than just submitting to it; how much isn't at all clear. It's not like he's so personally popular people would tend to take his cue on any particular issue, especially one people have such strong pre-existing feelings about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sure they are, its a zero sum game where whichever party is less "strong" on issues regarding Israel and supporting them are hurt more electorally. If Dems were much more dominant, Israeli lobbying would be much less effective. They are not polarized at all, both parties evidently on board with Palestinian genocide. Unless you’re claiming that Joe “If Israel didn’t exist the US would invent it” Biden and his party are actually secretly pro-Palestinian. I’m not saying the entirety of the Dems are as Zionist as Biden and his ilk but both parties largely agree in funding Israel’s war machine. And Israel’s not the only problematic military that the US funds, unfortunately. BUUNNI fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
While I'm loath to let RWM dictate Democratic foreign policy, they will 100% label anything short of full-throated support as wanting Israel to be exterminated, and that sort of fear-mongering is what they are good at. The threat of them banging that drum up until the election is a very real one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
It's just too dangerous in 2024 to not support genocide, the right wing will latch onto it and push through their own candidates who support genocide. At least Democrats in office get you something good here. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Fig leaf" usually doesn't refer to anything about morality. Instead, it refers to a way to cover up or distract from something embarrassing. In this case, the embarrassing thing would be that both sides privately wanted a ceasefire, even as they were making loud public pronouncements about how they would certainly destroy their foes this time for sure, and therefore it was convenient for them to blame the ceasefire on international pressure in order to protect their domestic images. Without having the full quote I'll accede to this description. To reiterate though: Even so, at least in 2021 Biden called for a ceasefire but during this conflict he instead publicly argues there is no possibility of one while John Kirby is out there calling it inappropriate. None of this supports the idea he's really putting any kind of pressure on the Israeli government. Misunderstood posted:I mean, I suppose I am in the realm of "sources in Washington say" here but it is widely speculated that Biden has been spending pretty much all his non-public efforts with Israel urging restraint. And that has begun to be reflected in his public statements. (Yesterday: Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner) Incredible. "Should have come sooner" while he continues to resist any call for a ceasefire. As far as I can tell there has yet to even be evidence that these pauses have been implemented, while there is plenty of reporting of Israelis firing upon civilians trying to flee - either down the supposedly safe southern route or even from hospitals that are being besieged. Misunderstood posted:You can also point to things like Sen. Durbin directly calling for a ceasefire - he is as establishment as it gets, so his call for a ceasefire suggests that opposition to Israel's actions is growing within the party, and that perhaps the waters are being tested to gauge public reactions to these kinds of calls. Good for Durbin, but to my knowledge he remains the only senator to do so and it has been about a week. A request that is pointedly being dismissed. It is already far too late for over ten thousand Palestinians, it is eventually going to be far too late for the rest. Misunderstood posted:The baseline here is Reagan making a phone call to Begin and being mad. Exactly what disruption to aid to Israel did Reagan propose or even threaten? It didn't disrupt aid but there's a direct line from that phone call to the ending of the bombings, which is still more than anything Biden appears to have done yet. Misunderstood posted:I wish a ceasefire polled well in the sense that "a ceasefire would be politically beneficial to Biden," but it's not. In the thread recently there were people who were under the impression that Warren did support a ceasefire.That was because they weren't aware that it is a semi-formal term meaning a negotiated, extended cessation of hostilities with a theoretical goal of settling the conflict. (BTW, that posters were able to learn that fact absolutely made that discussion worthwhile and suggests that kind of action can be effective. I don't think Sen. Warren "deserves" it but I think it does more good than ruining her night out does harm.) Ah, it might be politically troublesome to call for a ceasefire. It could be tricky. Better to not even try. You might be able to understand how loving hollow of an argument that is as patients and premature babies are dying right now. Misunderstood posted:I mean, there wasn't any indication that Nixon had goon-diplomats out across the Pacific sabotaging peace talks in Vietnam in 1968, but it still happened. I'm sure there was some rather extreme diplomatic tensions with Saudi Arabia after 9/11, but they didn't leak. Not everything that happens in foreign policy happens in public, and to take Biden's statements at face value isn't going to give you a very full picture. It's unfortunate that all we have to go on about what's happening more subtly is innuendo from mustachioed weirdo centrist writers who base their worldviews around idle thoughts on first-class flights. You might also note that Nixon made a point of criticizing LBJ on Vietnam - and even specifically peace talks - as opposed to saying everything's a-okay and fine there. This is the caliber of argument on par with saying there might be fairies at the core of the earth. It could be true! But one should operate on the evidence they actually have and not the evidence they imagine might exist but can't actually prove beyond loving bible code caliber poo poo. TGLT fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
On the topic of China I think there is good reason for the US to be wary of getting too close - the EU spent a bunch of years entwining themselves into Russia's economy and now has lost a bunch of that investment and has to deal with restructuring because of the political need to sanction them. Similarly, free trade/globalism/international supply chains took a major hit from COVID, and the US made moves to relocate battery production to the US because it is considered strategically important to maintain control over that capacity in the same way that microchips have been strategically important. The US made similar moves with oil supply starting around 2005 to reduce economic vulnerability to instability in the Middle East. You also have to consider the fact that China has long refused to be a market for some US exports like Facebook and Google due to the Great Firewall, so in some ways it is just tit-for-tat when the US makes a big show about TikTok as a national security concern - China knows the score, if they play protectionist it shouldn't be a big surprise when they get iced out in return. The place where this intersects with military concern is the moves China is making in Africa and the Pacific. On the face of it, they have been keeping these moves framed as trade, but the US is keenly aware of how trade can be used to achieve military objectives just by virtue of using similar tactics in Central and South America and the various islands that are part of the US's colonial history. I think it is pretty easy to see how Belt and Road could translate to the same sort of client relationship that, for example, Argentina has with their debt holders, and it's definitely bad that areas impoverished by colonialism now have to take out loans rather than having their extracted wealth repatriated. This has already played out, and it's not going to be a surprise when 10 or 20 years from now China takes possession of the capacity that got built with their capital when missed payments accumulate and use that as leverage to do neo-colonialism. It would be much preferable for the colonists to acknowledge their wrongdoing and take appropriate actions to make reparations so this exploitive situation would never seem appealing to the recipients in the first place, but failing that it's clear why it's geopolitically unappealing to let China take a turn extracting value. The posturing about control of the Pacific will probably not result in any military action unless China inexplicably decides it wants to achieve those same ends with violence, but I don't think it is that surprising that the US is framing economic opposition as simultaneously military opposition, because if China is completely stymied from achieving their ends with economics then military means might well become appealing to them (and the US and Europe are the same, this isn't an orientalist take).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Without having the full quote I'll accede to this description. To reiterate though: Even so, at least in 2021 Biden called for a ceasefire but during this conflict he instead publicly argues there is no possibility of one while John Kirby is out there calling it inappropriate. None of this supports the idea he's really putting any kind of pressure on the Israeli government. It's not shocking that Biden doesn't want a ceasefire. The US government wants the destruction of Hamas. US policy has been actively hostile to Hamas for over four decades. The only reason Hamas was even allowed to run for election is because Bush's legion of dumbasses in the State Department was convinced that there was no way a militant faction could win a free and fair election, and they figured that an electoral defeat for Hamas would provide legitimacy and justification for further suppression of Hamas. The US pushing for a "humanitarian pause" rather than a ceasefire is entirely consistent with US policy. The US government doesn't want the war to stop and things to return to the status quo - they want Hamas to be permanently destroyed once and for all, followed by lifting the blockade and flooding Gaza with humanitarian aid and development money directed straight into the pockets of peaceful factions. In 2021, when Israel had no intention of making a real incursion into Gaza and was just kind of halfheartedly carpet-bombing it, it made sense for the US to call for a ceasefire, because there's no real military gain there. But if Israel is going in with the intention of seriously crushing Hamas' power in Gaza through military force, then the US government is going to wholeheartedly support that basic objective. The problem American politicians have is with the methods, not the objective. That's why they support humanitarian pauses - because their goal isn't to stop Israel from destroying Hamas, it's to reduce the number of civilian casualties and collateral damage inflicted in the process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
A couple of developments at American universities. Columbia University has suspended two official student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for the rest of the semester. This is the full statement, so while they allege violations of university policy, no specific infractions are actually mentioned.Columbia University's Statement posted:Columbia University is suspending Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) as official student groups through the end of the fall term. This decision was made after the two groups repeatedly violated University policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event Thursday afternoon that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation. https://twitter.com/RetsefL/status/1722852140245254559 There was also a protest at MIT a couple of days ago that is exploding in some circles as evidence of antisemitism on American campuses, unsurprisingly conflating being anti-Israel with being antisemitic. Hell, this professor specifically claims the protest was pro-Hamas. At the time, MIT announced that further protesting would result in suspension, but have since backed off somewhat. MIT's Statement posted:After exhausting all other avenues for de-escalating the situation, we informed all protesters that they must leave the lobby area within a set time, or they would be subject to suspension. Many chose to leave, and I appreciate their cooperation. Some did not. Members of my team have been in dialogue with students all day. Because we later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues, we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities. The students will remain enrolled at MIT and will be able to attend academic classes and labs. We will refer this interim action to the Ad Hoc Complaint Response Team, which includes the chair of the Committee on Discipline, for final adjudication. https://twitter.com/joshrfeldman/status/1721292271222743229
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
TGLT, you seem to be responding as if my argument is “Biden is handling the situation correctly” and I think you should go back and review the conversation to this point. You said there was no evidence for my read on Biden’s actions; there is, I provided it, and I’m not surprised you don’t find it sufficient, nor do I blame you. I certainly don’t know the truth of the situation, it is just no more reasonable to reject what I am saying out of hand than it would be to insist that it’s absolutely true, considering it is within the normal bounds of how an incredibly sensitive diplomatic situation might be handled. TGLT posted:Ah, it might be politically troublesome to call for a ceasefire. It could be tricky. Better to not even try. A genocide is a horrible, unconscionable thing, but it does not preempt the need for long term thinking about cause and effect and the domestic political implications of international action, because the politics of these situations greatly affect future developments.“It might be politically troublesome” is actually a very important factor in formulating a response, which is gross as hell, but the world as gross as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Trade wise the US and China are each up to the elbow up each other’s rear end. It’s hugely important in both directions and to basically all the global supply chains.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:A genocide is a horrible, unconscionable thing, but it does not preempt the need for long term thinking about cause and effect and the domestic political implications of international action, because the politics of these situations greatly affect future developments.“It might be politically troublesome” is actually a very important factor in formulating a response, which is gross as hell, but the world as gross as hell. The problem with that line of thinking is that you can use it to justify anything, even domestic policy. We can't stop child separation at the border because “It might be politically troublesome”. We can't push for campaign finance reform because “It might be politically troublesome”. Etc. And the best part? We live in the world we live in, so there is no counterfactual, we do not know if x unconscionable action was ultimately a net positive or negative in the grand political games, but things could get worse, so stop trying to hold "good team" accountable for their actions!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:TGLT, you seem to be responding as if my argument is “Biden is handling the situation correctly” and I think you should go back and review the conversation to this point. Flatly put, no you haven't. From what I can see the extent of your evidence is Misunderstood posted:I mean, I suppose I am in the realm of "sources in Washington say" here but it is widely speculated that Biden has been spending pretty much all his non-public efforts with Israel urging restraint. Speculation Misunderstood posted:The NYT's Tom Friedman, whom Biden is known to take advice from and bounce ideas off of*, and whom he generally agrees with on foreign policy, has made an unprecedented rhetorical push from high-level media against Israeli aggression. The fact some one he sometimes listens to wants one, despite the fact said article was published about two weeks ago and had no visible effect on the administration Misunderstood posted:You can also point to things like Sen. Durbin directly calling for a ceasefire - he is as establishment as it gets, so his call for a ceasefire suggests that opposition to Israel's actions is growing within the party, and that perhaps the waters are being tested to gauge public reactions to these kinds of calls. A lone senator in opposition to their party, whom no other senator has followed, and the presumption that this could be a trial balloon (for which you have no evidence) Misunderstood posted:And that has begun to be reflected in his public statements. (Yesterday: Biden, in rare criticism of Bibi, says pause in Gaza fighting should have come sooner) A vague statement that it "should have been sooner" in the same press statement he said a ceasefire was not a possibility e: Hell, has one of these pauses even occurred yet? They were supposed to be announced in advance. Misunderstood posted:I mean, there wasn't any indication that Nixon had goon-diplomats out across the Pacific sabotaging peace talks in Vietnam in 1968, but it still happened. I'm sure there was some rather extreme diplomatic tensions with Saudi Arabia after 9/11, but they didn't leak. Not everything that happens in foreign policy happens in public, and to take Biden's statements at face value isn't going to give you a very full picture. It's unfortunate that all we have to go on about what's happening more subtly is innuendo from mustachioed weirdo centrist writers who base their worldviews around idle thoughts on first-class flights. A gesticulation to past covert actions as a basis for wishful thinking about this current administration It is in fact reasonable to reject what you're saying out of hand because it is not based on anything but "well maybe it could be" Misunderstood posted:Of course I understand that. The point isn’t whether or not it’s a “hollow argument,” it’s to what extent it’s true, and what the greater implications of that are. Do you think Biden can really handle all that much “political trouble” right now and hope to win? Republicans being in power is a gigantic problem for the entire world, on top of being a huge problem for racial and sexual minorities in the third largest country on earth. Yes, it’s an even bigger problem than what is happening in Israel right now, considering it would exacerbate this situation and many others as well. I think, in fact, he can and should actually try. This is arguing for a pathetic abdication of ones own morality to the altar of "well it could be worse" and if this is not worth standing for, for him, then it's hard to imagine what could be. A person is what they do, not what they promise to do or prevent. The youth vote clearly breaks in favor of ceasefire and has for a while, and getting out the youth vote is crucial for a Democratic victory. If one is truly concerned about potential Republican victory it would behoove them to put some real loving effort into regaining the trust of the young, especially after the failure of student loan forgiveness. TGLT fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Trade wise the US and China are each up to elbow up each other’s rear end. It’s hugely important in both directions and to basically all the global supply chains. Yeah everyone completely understands the United States reliance on cheap chinese labor. But a lot of people don't know that China very much relies on food imports to feed their people. That's why they're so nervous about food sanctions and staying out of Russia's imperialism. Cutting off food imports could create essentially a biblical famine in China after a year. Or seriously disrupt trade as all the food is used internally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Flatly put, no you haven't. From what I can see the extent of your evidence is Again, please don’t take this as an endorsement of Biden’s strategy, because it continues to not be one. At this point, whatever his strategy has been, it has not worked, and I’d like to imagine there was one that could have within this time frame. And again, the original implication that began the line of discussion was that Reagan was more willing to stand up than Israel than Biden; because of a single phone call of which we got a second hand account years later. please don’t misinterpret my position as being broader than it is. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:That is all I’ve provided, which is, as I’ve said, why I’m not surprised you are not convinced. I think a little of the divergence in our views of his actions are related to differences in media diet and broad impressions we’ve each drawn over the last month that are hard to drill down to a single link or citation. I will try to provide more tomorrow but don’t have time at the moment. I don't think you are condoning his actions, but I do think you are providing him far too much benefit of the doubt. Also the first story of the phone call was actually the same year, and as well Prime Minister Begin confirmed it had indeed happened. e: Same month, actually. TGLT fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I don't think you are condoning his actions, but I do think you are providing him far too much benefit of the doubt. And yeah I saw Begin had confirmed the story, I don’t doubt it happened. Just pointing out that certainly nobody knew it happened in 1982., just as Biden and Blinken are doing things right now we don’t see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:And yeah I saw Begin had confirmed the story, I don’t doubt it happened. Just pointing out that certainly nobody knew it happened in 1982., just as Biden and Blinken are doing things right now we don’t see. Both of those stories are from August, 1982.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
This Biden video and statement should be played on repeat as we get close to next year's election. Remind the voters every day that if the Repubs were ever the party of ARE TROOPS, they sure as hell aren't now. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1723468898668822864
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
SirFozzie posted:This Biden video and statement should be played on repeat as we get close to next year's election. Remind the voters every day that if the Repubs were ever the party of ARE TROOPS, they sure as hell aren't now. Conservatives are immune to charges of hypocrisy because they consider hypocrisy a sign of strength. They like accusing their enemies of hypocrisy because they think only weak fools care about consistency. “They have the freedom to play” etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 07:10
|
|
|
Also can't say I'm a big fan of Biden trying to flank Republicans from the right on who can worship ARE TROOPS the most.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 07:58
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Also can't say I'm a big fan of Biden trying to flank Republicans from the right on who can worship ARE TROOPS the most. I'd agree with you if the opponent was another Romney or McCain. But when the leading Republican is an actual fascist who openly disrespects the results of the election and tried to seize power anyway through extralegal means, it's pretty important that the military doesn't like him too much. Ultimately, the fate of democracy rests in the hands of the men with guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 09:02
|
|
|
I don't think "I respect the troops and that other fucker doesn't" really constitutes trying to outflank from the right, not in America, where support for the troops is taken to be an axiomatic good. Also yes a lot of fascists and conservatives don't care one whit about their hypocrisy but this is clearly aimed elsewhere, and trying to dampen support for him among those who might be on the fence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
The various gold star incidents with Trump have not been forgotten, I can tell you that. It doesn't take a lot to be just plausibly empathetic, and Trump can't muster it. The guy's got something missing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 11:06
|
|
|
It is also, I think, important to note that "republicans SAY they're the real troop lovers, but actually they vote for policies that make things worse for the troops" is a very different matter than "republicans SAY they're the real troop lovers, but actually here is donald trump, literally the guy you are being asked to vote for or against, saying becoming a troop is dumb" as far as accusations of hypocrisy goes. Not different enough to shift committed partisans, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean it doesn't shift ANYONE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
Name Change posted:The various gold star incidents with Trump have not been forgotten, I can tell you that. They don’t seem to have cared too much :quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/EJ26QVM555GETDUICSKYKKMJKQ.jpg) And this is about a month after this article came out: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/ Couldn’t find anything more recent so maybe things have changed since then
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:25 |
|
The Top G posted:They don’t seem to have cared too much That’s a poll of Military Times readers (lmao) which couldn’t be more self-selecting and it’s only +10 for Donald Trump, I would draw the conclusion veterans are voting in larger numbers for Biden based on that.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 13:05
|
|
