Do you want the short answer or the long answer?
Well just to prevent me from having to come back to answer
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Lol, no
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
154 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2908 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Their answers depend entirely on how much Lockheed Martin pays them.
Their corporate paymasters in the arms industry say no.
Any Democrat that sits on this, instead of voting in line with Sanders and other voices of conscience, is supporting Trump at this point.
The party line that Trump will be worse for Palestine will no longer work. And I will be writing the Democrat from my state to let them know as much.
Biden is lobbying against Sanders, even now. The guy has essentially King's powers and he's using them be a doddering, feckless war criminal.
Yeah, I saw that this morning. Biden has gone full mask off at this point. Old and nothing to lose but his pride.
I wouldn't be surprised if Biden WANTED Trump to win
There's been a lot of speculation claiming exactly that. I think it's a stretch.
But, if your actions are causing people to make that type of speculation, a normal person would at least take some time for self reflection.
Whether true or not, it's a bad look.
Whatever legacy Biden hoped to leave is irrevocably trashed IMHO.
If the Duopoly works together to stay in power it's a pretty effective way of preventing any real opposition from forming.
Most people still think it's red vs blue, when for the last 50 years in the US it's been rich vs poor.
It's only because this Senate session is under Democratic control that this is being voted on in the first place. After the new year, and new session, it will be under Republican control, and something like this will never make it to the floor. So yeah, penalize those that will allow a vote versus those that won't. Same thought process that gives you President Trump.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Spoiler alert: no.
No way
This would also have to pass the House, which it would not. I agree with Bernie's statement and respect his choice to put the resolution forth on principle. I do not respect the article author or commentors who are either ignorant of basic U.S. civics, or choosing to be deliberately deceptive in order to place blame solely on Democrats.
Democrats: “should we stop enabling genocide, now that we have absolutely no reason not to?
Gee!
Hmmmm
I dunno maybe?! :D probably not tho lol”
Well, let's see what Chuck Schumer probably thinks...
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S
Number 7 on one of the few bipartisan lists in DC, nestled right between hos buddies Mitch McTurtle and Rafael "Ted" Cruz...
One of the few areas Biden is really head and shoulders above the rest though.
But Israel pays way too much money to both parties for either party's leaders to actually do what's best for America.
They're gonna do what's best for their campaign donations.
Edit:
Since some people may be surprised number 2 doesn't sound familiar, it's this guy:
One of the most corrupt Dems to ever be held accountable (technically the trial is still happening).
He was Hillary's co-campaign chair in 07 when she lost to Obama, and then Obama made him chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for some fucking reason. He was indicted shortly after in 2018, but charges were then dropped for 5 years till 2023 when he was committing crimes and accepting bribes from foreign government with a legitimately trumpian level of skill at hiding his crimes.
Like, at one point I remember him trying to argue that storing gold bars inside of the suits in his closet was a totally normal thing and not related to him googling how to smuggle gold bars into America while he was in Qatar and just accepted gold bars as bribe...
What's best for America is containing Iran.
So... Not sure what your going on about. It would be grossly negligent for a US president to break or alliance with Israel and let Iran run the middle east for the next century. You think human rights are under threat now, but you think we should let Iran run things. Seems either ignorant or hypocritical.
The actual conviction that a fucking shia state is going to create a hegemony without a belligerent Israel to counterbalance them is laughable. The only reason they get as much support as they do now is because everyone fucking hates us more. Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are plenty to counterbalance Iran when push comes to shove. Though I don't consider the Saudis much better. Pan Arabisim specifically discounts Persians and they will react to Iran being a significant threat, even if Turkey and Egypt play nice right now.
The only thing Israel will give the US is a causus beli to go to war with Iran, which is a war the US certainly does not have the conviction to win.
With hundreds of millions of lives on the line, nobody should count on religious fanatics to be rational. They aren't rational.
A hedgemony without Isreal is laughable, I agree. I'm not sure what you're getting at though because Israel, and it's nuclear armament, isn't going anywhere. That's the worry: that Iran, with the power of God on its side, will think it could actually defeat Israel and decide to shoot its shot. They cannot beat Israel. It's not a successful pan-islamic caliphate seated in Tehran that I'm worried about.
I'm worried about the aspiring caliphate that wants to destroy Israel and thinks its ordained to do so. It's great that Egypt and Saudi Arabia will resist Iran, but it won't be before at least tens or even hundreds of millions of war refugees flee the area. Where are they going to go? They're going to head to North Africa, the Mediterranean Coast, eastern Europe, central Africa, south western Asia. What's going to happen to those economies and governments? Maybe not all of the surrounding states will collapse, but some of them will for sure. And then what will happen to all the people that live in these collapsing countries, not to mention Iran itself?
You're trying to downplay the seriousness of the threat posed by a fanatic government in Iran because it believes in a model of government that we, as rational people know cannot sustain from its geopolitical position.
What I'm saying is that it will cost tens of millions of lives for Iran to learn that lesson. Tens of millions of more people will be victims of strained economies and governments, many of whom will likely fall permanently into nation-states of Islamic fascism. The strategy of the western world in the middle east needs to be one based on helping Iran understand that it will not win a war against Israel, despite Iran's sincere conviction that it has God in its side.
America absolutely has the conviction to make sure Iran is not successful. Every president in modern memory has said in no uncertain terms that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons while they are in office. The Pentagon's war plans for a war between Iran and Israel calls for millions of American troops on the ground in Israel.
In any event, the 50,000 dead in Gaza will be a forgettable drop in the bucket compared to the casualties that start tallying up if Iran declares war. It would be pretty stupid for America to change its Middle East policy because Israel went ham on 50,000 people when a change in America's policy is likely to prompt a war that will kill millions of people and displace possibly hundreds of millions. It took a year for 50,000 people to die in Gaza; try to imagine what it would be like when 50,000 people are dying everyday before lunchtime.
So let's just be clear that anyone saying that America should pull its support for Israel is not saying so because of any sincere desire to save lives or preserve human rights.
You speak with both sides of your mouth. Somehow America is preventing Iran from invading Israel while also Iran is a loose cannon that will invade anyway. It's horseshit. The one who's going to start a war is Israel. They're the ones committing genocide and they're the ones who actually put boots on the ground in other countries while flagrantly violating the Geneva convention. That's the powder keg the US has enabled and will continue to enable by giving full support to fascist governments. It won't provide stability or security. All it provides is an absolute liability.
You speak with both sides of your mouth. Somehow America is preventing Iran from invading Israel while also Iran is a loose cannon that will invade anyway. ~~It's horseshit. The one who's going to start a war is Israel. They're the ones committing genocide and they're the ones who actually put boots on the ground in other countries while flagrantly violating the Geneva convention. That's the powder keg the US has enabled and will continue to enable by giving full support to fascist governments. It won't provide stability or security. All it provides is an absolute liability. And you're beyond delusional if you think~~ Americans will accede to the Pentagon's war plans once the bodies start flying in.
Hmm okay, your strong feelings aside, no, Iran is not likely to invade Israel if we maintain the existing defensive posture, which we will, and which includes the threat of American air support and ground troops, and which, brace yourself, has been working very effectively.
The Supreme Leader can throw the hardliners a few "crumbs" such as October 7 to say "see look how hard our boys are fighting the infidels, hang in there were gonna win this thing" and they will keep the immamate in power, keep relative peace in downtown Tehran, mask on. The problem is the supreme leader, being as he is a human, might have faculties that start to deteriorate and the seat of his power might start being exercised irrationally.
I'm going to assume now that since you suppose to know what Americans will accede to you are American. Your general opinion as to Gaza aren't shared by virtually anyone in Washington, DC. And obviously you know, rhetoric aside, you live in a liberal democracy for which you are pretty thankful. You can do the math, which is objective, but you must know that your description of Israel as anything other than a flawed, young liberal democracy, is not taken as anything more than hyperbole. Obviously Israel is not a fascist government, nor is the US government, as long as our liberal democratic institutions stand. Hamas, the Iranian immamate, the Qatari royal family, on the other hand, whose general rhetoric as to Gaza you agree with, are actually fascists: no trial by jury, no due process, no electoral oversight, no judicial oversight, laws can be changed at the whim of church muckity mucks, any rights granted can be as instantly taken, religious police, with summary executions, are an actual thing in Iran, in Qatar, in Gaza. Ya know, for-real fascism, no rhetoric.
So you should at least ask why you are siding with actual for-real fascists against the virtually unanimous opinions of your own liberal democratic government's leadership, and not even with their TV news rhetoric, but with their actual votes in Congress. Do you have any sense of dissonance here? If you think they are all wrong, that I'm wrong, and that you have it all figured out, maybe you can offer some explanation for the fact that despite the horrific "fully fascist" genocide, going on more than a year, 99% of everyone in Gaza is still alive. Seems like you're the one who's talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Oh of course, who ever heard of a neoliberal state going off the rails and planning delusional foreign policy. I'm obviously some way off base nutjob for suggesting such a thing. Since you want to deny the genocide that's happening, though, I don't really see the point in continuing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Probably not. US international relations is heavily driven by an amoral power calculus.
Israel is a major foil to Iran. Iran is an ally of Russia and China and a threat to US interests in the region. Barring an extreme amount of pressure from constituents, which has not reached that threshold as far as I can tell, most US politicians will tolerate almost any human rights abuse from Israel.
Israel is a close ally to Russia too, up until very recently. Netenyahus campaign was based more on his friendship with Putin than with Trump or Biden.
This is superficial. Neither Russia nor China are particularly antagonistic to Israel or the Gulf states, even if they see the US as a foe in their own region. Russia for example is very careful about balancing its relations with the Gulf, Israel and Iran. China, views Iran as a potential foothold to the region, but China actually benefits from the US presence, it is far more energy import dependent than the US and has no desire to fuel instability by helping Iran pursue offensive goals.
The actual reason that Iran and the USA are enemies has to do with the US' sectarian alignment with Sunni powers and Jewish nationalism, and more complicated reasons relating to politicial and religious struggles in the entire region that Iran happens to be one side of (i.e anti-monarchism, clericism, etc). And an institutional (and not necessarily rational) hatred of Iran in the US top brass due to its role in helping Iraqis and Lebanese fight American soldiers.
You cannot talk about this issue in terms of "Russia-China-Iran" balancing without mentioning the deeper and much more relevant issues that make US-Israel relationship exceptional on a globsl level: post-Holocaust philosemetism, anti-Islamism, anti-Arabism and (very underreported) Christian piety that actually motivates US-Israel policy. And the Israel lobby, which is so deeply engrained that Israel is treated more or less like the 51st state.
Politics goes far beyond amoral power calculus. You could have justified a ceasefire and even an embargo on Israeli arm transfers in accordance to amoral power calculus, but for Biden, Blinken and the rest, this is a moral question relating to a transcendent moral and religious cause, steeped in centuries of historical memory.
I have zero doubt that Joe Biden believes that by helping murderous racist Netanyahu slaughter and expel the people of Gaza, he has placed himself in the company of Cyrus the Great and other deliverers of Jews rather than Idi Amin and Radovan Karadzic. The GOP puts such things in explicitly religious terms and thus appear less rational or calculating. But it's not even that well-hidden in the case of Biden and Blinken given what we know of their careers and lives.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If the logic is "selling these is causing war crimes" they'd have to defined the entire US military. The US regularly breaks the same laws.
load more comments
(21 replies)
view more: next ›