cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
It’s so simple, even a random person on the internet with no knowledge of how any of it actually works has figured it all out!
Yeah! Just… break a decades-long agreement. There no nuance to this at all! No complications…
amirite?
There can’t possibly be any penalties or repercussions for that! I mean. A random internet citizen said to do it- so……
Easy peezy!
So we throw away the “rules based international order” and return to the pre-1914 unilateral rules and all the brutal wars that bought? So much better, amirite? Might makes right, and we’ve got the might
for now!The US stance on Israeli leadership is decimating our ability to wield soft power influence. We are global hypocrites blocking ANY action, whilst expecting the world to fall in line to support Ukraine against Russian revanchism - even NATO members dissent from the US position. The global south is turning to China/OPEC+ trading blocs. They already tried to break the petrodollar, which would be a huge blow if successful.
Even taking a realpolitik approach, without soft power all those US military bases used for ‘power projection’ lose their local consent, and become occupation sites inside non-allied nations. The Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan is a chill spot for launching COIN drone missions - whereas the Conoco base in Syria is constantly under drone and rocket attack.
Supporting Bibi’s wars of aggression is a stupid play on multiple levels.
I never said it was good to support it (though I’m sure that won’t stop people from reporting me for being a genocide apologist). Only that it’s a very complicated and nuanced thing to just assume it should be easy to simply stop because we want it to.
Nothing would make me happier than to see the issue resolved and for people to stop being hurt. But that’s not for me to decide. With a vote or otherwise.
And that’s because it’s a very complicated agreement. Nations don’t just decide to break them. Regardless of your strong opinions on the matter.
I see at least three actions in that statement:
#1 should have happened a long time ago imo, if not used as a leverage to prevent an Israeli ground invasion of
Rafah,the West Bank,Lebanon, striking enrichment at Natanz. “Free bombs for crimes against humanity” is a bad moral play, bad politics, and bad diplomacy outside the US:Israel sphere.#2 Is politically hard normally, impossible in an election cycle. I hate it, but here we are in the house we built. Make FEC the only campaign funds - it’s OUR government, not the highest bidder’s.
#3 The US’s geopolitical track record shows that we’ll tolerate some awful, terrible people if they’ll get ‘on our side’ even if there’s a trend of massive and foreseeable blowback, the diplomatic corps don’t learn lessons.
And my point is:
What I’m trying to say is that none of us are experts on the subject. And those that are suggest that, guess what?
Yeah. It’s more complicated than that.
And I chose to believe the experts on the matter. But when they’re ready to argue music theory, I’ll eat their lunch. 😀
If the “experts” told you that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, would you believe them?
So… those experts weren’t American. They were from the UK and Denmark.
Try again bud.
Sure…
Gotta love the far leftists edgelord meme responses. Everyone knows that this is you admitting you have no argument by the way.
And thanks! I take these as a badge of honor! I’m collecting them!
The US military-industrial complex does not need you to defend it.
It might well be more complex than that, but you have every right to demand from your government to put its vast resources to use in order to tackle that complexity. Given the severity of the situation, I’d say you have a responsibility to.
Seeing such a tragedy unfold and going ‘oh, my government probably has a good reason to keep funding the active genocide, I’d hate to give some extra paperwork to our bureaucrats by making a fuss!’ is very defeatist, to put it politely.
Demand as much you’d like. It’s a right to do so. However the problem is, we have assholes that are withholding their vote because their unreasonable demands aren’t being met. And yes, expecting a nation to simply just… end an agreement is unreasonable.
Because again- it’s NUANCED AND COMPLICATED.
And therein is the problem.
I’d love for just ONE of these people demanding we stop sending weapons to Israel to lay out a plan on exactly how to go about it. Because I’d love to see that! I’d LOVE to see it happen, because I HATE that it’s happening to begin with.
I’m sure the pentagon, the White House and even Palestine would love to see that as well.
But no. That won’t happen. Because it’s so much easier to just demand a thing you don’t understand, than it is to accept that what you demand is unreasonable in the context of what actually needs to happen for it to work.
And therein lies my point.
We ALL want that shit to stop. ALL of us. It’s a no brainer to want to end the supply of weapons to those that use them to harm innocent people. But saying “Look at me! I want the US to stop supplying arms to Israel! I’m a good guy! Give me internet points!” Isn’t helping anyone. I could do that shit all day. It doesn’t change anything.
Provide a seamless and workable plan to end the supply or stop assuming it’s that easy. Because it’s easy to say a thing should be done.
It’s MUCH harder to actually do it.
Its really not that hard, the US just has to lay demands down to Israel and follow through with them. You stop making things worse by doing X by Y date, if you dont we stop providing you one type of weapon you need least. If you dont do it by Z date you lose something more important. Repeat until they realise you’re not bluffing.
The problem isn’t that its beyond the wit of man for the US to figure out how to use its immense leveage over Israel, its that it chooses not to.
So I’m to assume you disagree with leading experts on the subject? Because NPR had them on a few mornings ago and they said exactly as I’m saying- it’s incredibly complicated and nuanced.
But you seem to know everything. Perhaps you should tell them they’re wrong.
I’m done with this. There’s no getting through to anyone here.
I think the issue people arguing with you that you don’t seem to get is that not everyone does want it to stop.
You seem blind to that reality that there is a large portion who arent even looking or talking that people are dying.
Who think what is going on and continuing is fine, or even good or right. And those people are in the positions to even try to limit any of it, and wont.
You’re not arguing honestly if you really claim the reason no one in power speaks against it is because it’s too hard? That seems really unlikely doesn’t it? “It’s difficult and we’re looking at legal options” and “we will continue to arm and defend them” are wholly different.
You entirely missed the point of everything I’ve said- whether it be on purpose or not, I’m done trying to explain this shit. It’s a pointless exercise in futility to even try and have a nuanced discussion here.
You haven’t really said anything though. You just keep claiming “it’s complicated bro”. How? We’re reasonable people here, for the most part. If you can explain why it’s not simple, people might listen.
I’ve explained it already throughout this entire thread.
No, you haven’t. You’ve repeatedly claimed that experts think pulling out of a 20 year conflict is complicated*, but haven’t provided the slightest insight into how that might be. In fact, you’ve admitted that you don’t know. If you put 1/10th as much effort into researching this instead of just making 20 appeals to authority and saying we can’t hope to understand it, you would know what’s complicated about it.
* and I’m not saying it’s not complicated. But making 20 posts to this effect with no further substance has no value.
It’s a lot easier to copy and paste a single response to each of you than to custom tailor it every time one of you respond. Especially since it’s the same argument over and over.
What do you think happens when America stops supplying Israel? Think they’ll just stop attacking Palestine?? They’ve already said that don’t really need America chipping in. And they don’t. So… when America just- stops sending them arms, the next bidder steps in. That’s what happens.
And that’s going to be either China or Russia.
And they wont have any restrictions like America does. (And before you say “what restrictions” I’d urge you to try and understand what’s involved in the pact). Russia and or China will absolutely allow them to decimate Palestine. And even help if necessary.
And if America doesn’t end up going to war with them over this, guess, who they’re all most likely turning their sights on once Palestine becomes a gravel pit?
This is just ONE example.
There are MANY others. Pay attention when the experts on the sublet discuss this. You’ll learn something just as I did.
And lastly…. What could be done, at best, is America might be able to leverage additional conditions. And if you’ve been paying attention- they’ve been trying to do just that this entire time.
Again- nuance. Understand it.
I’m pretty sure the answer you’re going to get is “1. Stop sending them 2. Profit”
Pretty much:
It’s not “nuanced and complicated”… if you’re a lemmy.ml shill trying to get Trump elected
Since you are a person “with knowledge of how any of it works”, please share with the class what those penalties and repercussions are. Educate us poor ignorant “random Internet citizens”.
I don’t have knowledge of how it works. And that is why you don’t seem me injecting my bullshit take on how to resolve it. I don’t claim to know how easy it is to just…. Break a decades long agreement.
I do however listen to the experts when they say that it’s incredibly complicated and detailed situation that goes back decades and involves two countries that have had a conflict since 1948 officially, and predates even that. And that it’s not so simple to just…. Break a decades long agreement.
See?
That’s how an understanding of NUANCE works. You start by learning that you don’t know everthing, and finish with the understanding that not everthing is as black and white as you’d like it to be- that there will always be others that know more about it than you do, and that you should listen to them.
And no, I’m not one of them. I’m simply advocating that you seek them out and listen to what they say. Because I guarantee you, they’re going to school you on what you thought you knew about how to navigate geopolitical diplomacy.
We can all hope that the powers that be find a way to end this as soon as possible. But we’re not helping anyone by assuming simplicity where there isn’t any.
Your argument is silly. There are laws on the book that empower the State Department to block arms transfers to Israel. The only way this can be undone is if Congress repealed the laws, which is hardly likely.
So, what you’re saying is that it’s….
Complicated?
I think part of why you’re getting downvoted to hell is because your initial comment reads like “I don’t have the answers (none of us do), but I know yours is wrong. I’m not contributing any facts to show why you’re wrong, but because I feel strongly that you are, I’ve decided to be insulting about it.”
I get it, world politics is complicated. Absolutely no action on a world stage is without unexpected consequences. But that in itself is not an argument for arming an ethnostate we know to be killing civilians at an alarming rate. And the unexpected consequences would have to be damned severe to outweigh the known consequences of our current actions: if we keep providing weapons to Israel, those weapons will be used to kill women and children in droves.
No, I’m being downvoted because the majority of lemmy doesn’t understand how nuanced topics work. It’s all or nothing. “With us, or against us.”
It’s a hive mind mentality here.
With this in mind, it’s not a stretch to understand that one doesn’t need to know how things should be done to know how things shouldn’t be done.
Want an example? I don’t know the right way to safely jump out of an airplane is, but I know that doing it without a parachute is fucking stupid.
And this same logic is applied to the idea that it’s easy to just end treaties and agreements and assume there’d be no consequences. Those that have the power to end them- yeah… THEY know.
But I know, it’s SOOOOOO much easier to just fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit suits an argument than it is to actually look into it. I’ve looked into it. And as I r already mentioned- EXPERTS in the field have said it’s incredibly complicated
Lastly, I don’t give a shit about being downvoted. It’s an irrelevant and worthless carryover from Reddit that should never have happened.
This is a nice little rant, but there is nothing “complicated” about the Leahy law or the State Department discretion unless you’re literally a child or have some kind of cognition issue. It’s straight forward. If Biden wants to stop sending weapons, all he has to do is tell his Secretary of State “hey, stop sending weapons on account of the law says we can’t” and it’s done.
Cool. And in your little make believe world, there’s zero repercussions for doing that?
This is EXACTLY my point. You don’t know how it works.
“You expect America, with its history of breaking promise and agreement and doing whatever the fuck it wants and giving two middle fingers to anyone that doesnt like it… to break its promises and agreements with Israel to prevent a genocide? THE NERVE! HOW UNCOUTH! WHY I NEVER!”
Yet another person that thinks it’s simple and easy- while offering no solution.
Removed by mod
Again with the false accusations. That’s a clear indicator that you have no argument.
Sure buddy.
You keep towing that line.
Still waiting for your argument here that doesn’t involve insults.
Come on now. You can do this.
Oh, and it’s “toeing” the line. Maybe fix that before you decide to smart-ass the next person make this mistake again.
deleted by creator
Suuuure buddy. I don’t get paid enough to care about a simple autocorrect mistake.
I guess its easy to use when your desperate to discredit criticism, though.
Just like when you make fun of someones obviously low hanging fruit and totally a trap user name.
Towing and toeing are both in the autocorrect library.
Just admit you didn’t know the difference.
(See, since you decided to troll me with ad hominem attacks and abandon the topic of discussion, this is what you should expect to happen. Make be sure your shit smells like roses before you comment on the shit of others)
Mmmkay?
Israel is going to impose “penalties” on the US? Are you high?
What do you think happens when America stops supplying Israel? Think they’ll just stop attacking Palestine?? They’ve already said that don’t really need America chipping in. And they don’t.
So… when America just- stops sending them arms, the next bidder steps in. That’s what happens.
And that’s going to be either China or Russia. And they wont have any restrictions like America does. (And before you say “what restrictions” I’d urge you to try and understand what’s involved in the pact). Russia and or China will absolutely allow them to decimate Palestine. And even help if necessary.
And if America doesn’t end up going to war with them over this, guess, who they’re all most likely turning their sights on once Palestine becomes a gravel pit?
This is just ONE example. There are MANY others. Pay attention when the experts on the sublet discuss this. You’ll learn something just as I did.
And lastly…. What could be done, at best, is America might be able to leverage additional conditions. And if you’ve been paying attention- they’ve been trying to do just that this entire time.
Again- nuance. Understand it.
lol, holy shit
Man… I’m really done wasting my time trying to explain simple concepts to far leftists. What a fucking waste of time.
You really think China and Russia would give billions of free weapons to Israel?
I really think they’d go to someone, and negotiates would ensue. I can’t predict the outcome because I’m not an idiot that makes assumptions.
And again, I am not the one making these decisions. I’m simply offering an example of how it would be incredibly difficult to just simply- stop.
Which is more than anyone that’s countering the argument.
“It’s so easy! Just stop sending weapons! Break a trade agreement! No consequences at all because Israel is so well know as a nice and understanding nation!”
Genuinely, who in the world has the capacity to give the level of aid the US gives to Israel. You say they would go to someone and don’t want to predict who it would be, then give a list. What countries would be able and remotely willing to even a 10th of what the US gives to Israel?
I don’t get to make that assumption. The point you’re missing here is that it’s COMPLICATED. I gave a simple example of what might stall the “simple” decision to do as the leftists think would be so easy. (Bad auto-correct decision here, hope it fixed before read)
They’ve come up with zero ideas or concepts of how it can be done, but my feet are held to the fire to illustrate why it’s complicated?
That’s where we are now.
Armchair geopolitical edgelords on the internet get to claim simplicity in ending trade policies, whereas someone who suggest it isn’t that easy is held to the task to explain it to people that are just going to brush it off with ad hominem attacks nay say.
I’m done dude. I said what I felt needed be said. I’m not here to change kids as that’s fucking impossible. I knew this before I started and did it anyway.
You cannot reason with a leftist.
I’m just going to point and laugh from now on like everyone else does.
Israel doesn’t get to threaten the world with our weapons. That’s why we have laws about this specific thing.
Soooo… what’s your solution? Solve the problem. Let’s see you explain away and solve something even experts in the field say is incredibly complicated.
Also. While you’re at it, go ahead and show your credentials that give you the authority to tell an entire administration that you know shit that they don’t.
Yeah so I used to work as a Civil Affairs soldier. So I know what is a war crime, what level is culpable for different war crimes, and the laws around the US giving different types of aid.
From our POV it’s actually pretty simple. Israel has committed massive war crimes that have literally indicted the Prime Minister. Even credible allegations of war crimes are enough to make sending military or cash aid illegal. The only things we’re legally allowed to send to Israel are food, construction material, medical support, and energy infrastructure.
So it’s not actually complicated, like, at all.
Okay, it’s think a “Civil Affairs Soldier” should already know this, but….
What do you think happens when America stops supplying Israel? Think they’ll just stop attacking Palestine?? They’ve already said that don’t really need America chipping in. And they don’t. So… when America just- stops sending them arms, the next bidder steps in. That’s what happens.
And that’s going to be either China or Russia.
And they wont have any restrictions like America does. (And before you say “what restrictions” I’d urge you to try and understand what’s involved in the pact). Russia and or China will absolutely allow them to decimate Palestine. And even help if necessary.
And if America doesn’t end up going to war with them over this, guess, who they’re all most likely turning their sights on once Palestine becomes a gravel pit?
This is just ONE example that makes it not so “easy” as you all think it is.
There are MANY others.
Maybe pay attention when the experts on the sublet discuss this. You’ll learn something just as I did. And lastly…. What could be done, at best, is America might be able to leverage additional conditions. And if you’ve been paying attention- they’ve been trying to do just that this entire time. Again- nuance. Understand it.
Removed by mod
Fitting username. I’m done interacting with you.
Ooh, I was being sarcastic but looks like I hit it right on the nose.
No, you hit nothing but a blatant accusation of someone which clearly breaks the rules. If I have to follow them, so do you.
Oh no! You mean they weren’t genuine friends in the first place? So why would I care about them switching sides? If we couldn’t actually depend on them then we should be kicking them to the curb.
And it’s not about shutting down the genocide, we have other tools for that. This is about our culpability and sending a message of what’s required to be in the western sphere. This is exactly why the Leahy Law was passed. So we didn’t have to sit here and listen to cold war logic in the 21st century.
I knew this was pointless to get into. I knew it as I was doing it. But someone has to be the common sense counter to the rhetoric.
I said my part in this. I’m not going to debate you on it.
Lmao. Such a Panda moment. I love it.
Says, The Experts Say!
Meets Subject Matter Expert
OhShi.gif, switches to different field
Doesn’t realize the subject matter expert studied International Politics too.
Flips the board and goes home.