Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      111
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      43


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Life said:


Why can't I just say "well, that wasn't REAL fascism" because it didn't produce the ultimate state utopia and ended up turning into one of the bloodiest meat grinders of all time?
 

You can say whatever you want to say.

...concerning the preceding post...

Israel needs to think long and hard about what it means for its future if it pivots from being an Ally of the United States of America to an Ally of the Republican Party. 

Because with the ban of two Democratic elected members of Congress at the urging of a Republican president, that is what it is being perceived here that Israel is doing. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

You can say whatever you want to say.

...concerning the preceding post...

Israel needs to think long and hard about what it means for its future if it pivots from being an Ally of the United States of America to an Ally of the Republican Party. 

Because with the ban of two Democratic elected members of Congress at the urging of a Republican president, that is what it is being perceived here that Israel is doing. 

I'm sorry, I'm going to take Maher's side and call BDS a bullshit purity test, just like he has. Maher makes the exact same case I do but does it far more eloquently. As he pointed out, 93% of the Democratic Party voted against the BDS bill that the Squad put forward. Now who's the one really out of touch and making enemies for no particular reason?

 

Tell me, what is your understanding of Middle Eastern history from the 1920's onwards? I'm not trying to be condecending; I simply don't know where the gaps in your knowledge base exist and I can probably help fill them in due to me living in the area.

 

EDIT: For the record, as I explained prior, both Trump and Bibi had no influence on Deri's decision to ban the Squad... because Deri was publicly saying that he'd uphold the BDS law a week before. You didn't read what I posted and so decided that it must be Trump and Bibi... because why not?

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Life said:

I'm sorry, I'm going to take Maher's side and call BDS a bullshit purity test, just like he has. Maher makes the exact same case I do but does it far more eloquently.

 

Tell me, what is your understanding of Middle Eastern history from the 1920's onwards? I'm not trying to be condecending; I simply don't know where the gaps in your knowledge base exist and I can probably help fill them in due to me living in the area.

I know the history. I know Arab antisemitism predates the creation of the Israeli nation-state, and that the Palestinian issue is (in large part) mere pretext for those whose true belief is that the State of Israel never should have been created to begin with. 

And I know Israelis get an enormous amount of undeserved flak for that issue when, in truth, the thawing of Egyptian-Israeli relations in The Sinai provides clear and guiding precedent for how the Palestinian separatists could have a lasting peace, if ever they were to renounce the Intifada and come to the negotiating table in good faith.    

...now that being said...

Israel needs to be aware that its security situation is a political one; not just militaristic. 

And that they have the leeway they have to conduct the military operations that they conduct largely because the USA runs cover for them on the international stage.

And that we do this because we perceive in Israel an allied social democracy that shares our interests and our commitments.

This perception is damaged when Israel is seen as being partisan, rather a than true ally.

The Republicans are not going to be in control of American foreign policy forever. 

The next time a Democrat is in the White House--and in a position to decide the extent to which America will back Israel's military efforts or oppose them--what do you think it will mean for Israeli security if the president's thinking is: "The Israelis are not our friends. The Israelis are an instrumentality of the nationalist right, and one of the political forces working to take this country backwards. Treat them as such." 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I know the history. I know Arab antisemitism predates the creation of the Israeli nation-state, and that the Palestinian issue is (in large part) mere pretext for those whose true belief is that the State of Israel never should have been created to begin with. 

And I know Israelis get an enormous amount of undeserved flak for that issue when, in truth, the thawing of Egyptian-Israeli relations in The Sinai provides clear and guiding precedent for how the Palestinian separatists could have a lasting peace, if ever they were to renounce the Intifada and come to the negotiating table in good faith.    

...now that being said...

Israel needs to be aware that its security situation is a political one; not just militaristic. 

And that they have the leeway they have to conduct the military operations that they conduct largely because the USA runs cover for them on the international stage.

And that we do this because we perceive in Israel an allied social democracy that shares our interests and our commitments.

This perception is damaged when Israel is seen as being partisans, rather than true allies.

The Republicans are not going to be in control of American foreign policy forever. 

The next time a Democrat is in the White House--and in a position to decide the extent to which America will back Israel's military efforts or oppose them--what do you think it will mean for Israeli security if the president's thinking is: "The Israelis are not our friends. The Israelis are an instrumentality of the nationalist right, and one of the political forces working to take this country backwards. Treat them as such." 

Then explain why two US congresswomen who were flying to Israel could not even name it as such on their manifesto and were not planning to meet with any Israeli officials.

As I understand it, it's the Squad that does not perceive Israel to be an American ally and has attempted to embarrass us for ideological purposes.

And remember, 93% of Democrats in Congress oppose the Squad on BDS. You have congresswomen who are actively attempting to hurt our economy. What do you expect us to do, just smile and take it like all the rockets we've taken over the years? How is this anything other than an attack on us?

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Life said:

Then explain why two US congresswomen who were flying to Israel could not even name it as such on their manifesto and were not planning to meet with any Israeli officials.

Their districts represent a minority view of US-Israeli relations, but thats beside the point. 

They are elected members of Congress. They're in a high-profile political beef with Trump. And you guys didn't ban when you learned about their itineraries or when you first heard their positions; you banned them when Trump sent out a tweet saying that they shouldn't be allowed to go to Israel + should be banned from entry by the Israeli government.  

And I can tell you that isn't playing well over here. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Their districts represent a minority view of US-Israeli relations, but thats beside the point. 

They are elected members of Congress. They're in a high-profile political beef with Trump. And you guys didn't ban them after you learned about their itineraries or their positions; you banned them after Trump sent out a tweet saying that they shouldn't be allowed in Israel.  

And I can tell you that isn't playing well over here. 

This is incorrect as I have explained twice.

Deri was planning to ban them from the start. I heard about this a week before the news actually broke. It was Ron Dermer (Israeli ambassador to the US) who believed that Omar and Tlaib would be the exceptions to the 2017 BDS law.

EDIT: This is in case you missed that point the first time.

It is also important to note that despite what you might read in the newspapers, neither Trump nor Bibi had any say in the decision. This was Aryeh Deri's decision alone and for the week leading up to last Thursday, Deri (the Interior Minister) was solid on his position that Tlaib and Omar should be subject to the BDS law, making them no different than any other foreign national regardless of status or position in any government. Tlaib and Omar's rejection to entry is actually the rule, not the exception. It was Ron Dermer (Israeli ambassador to the USA) who had promised the pair entry despite the fact that he was in no position to do so.



Deri, by the way, is not in Bibi's party (he is the leader of Shas, the party of the ultra-Orthodox Haredi leeches) and is not beholden to Bibi in any form. Bibi actually needs Deri to even have a chance at forming a government and we already know that if Bibi attempts to pressure Deri to do something he doesn't want, Deri is OK with dissolving the Knesset and calling new elections since the Haredi will always vote for Shas and they are the kingmakers here. We know this because it has already happened once this year over the draft law.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Life said:

This is incorrect as I have explained twice.

Deri was planning to ban them from the start. I heard about this a week before the news actually broke. It was Ron Dermer (Israeli ambassador to the US) who believed that Omar and Tlaib would be the exceptions to the 2017 BDS law.

EDIT: This is in case you missed that point the first time.
 

 

Whatever they were purportedly considering or not considering beforehand; they made and announced the final decision to ban within hours of Trump tweeting:

 Image result for trump tweet israel ban


Proximity-in-time colors perception that this was a political move, made in support of Trump and in opposition to his top critics in Congress.

Again--not a good look for you. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Whatever they were purportedly considering or not considering beforehand; they made and announced the final decision to ban within hours of Trump tweeting:

 Image result for trump tweet israel ban


Proximity-in-time colors perception that this was a political move, made in support of Trump and in opposition to his top critics in Congress.

Again--not a good look for you. 

I'm not sure you understand this.

By saying Trump had a hand in this (which I have to repeatedly say over and over that he didn't), you are helping spread a false narrative. Now, it just seems to be on purpose because you won't say "you know what, you clearly know more about this situation than I do because you live in the area so I will stop trying to push a debunked narrative that has been explained to me over and over why I am incorrect".

I don't care what Trump says on Twitter. Both he and Bibi had no hand in the matter and cannot even influence the Interior Minister to do or not do anything since Deri is only beholden to the Ultra-Orthodox here and takes that job seriously. I don't care how the optics look, you are simply telling me that you refuse to acknowledge that the Israeli government does not work the way you wish it would to support your narrative.

The optics do not reflect the reality of the situation. Trump was not involved. Bibi was not involved. Whatever they wanted politically is irrelevant because neither actually held the cards here. Accept it. Stop assuming causation because of correlation.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Clearly.

And therein lies the problem 

Yes. That's the point.

The optics are based on a LIE. And the lie is that Trump and/or Bibi had anything to do with the banning of Tlaib and Omar (Tlaib was actually not banned outright, she was given permission to visit her family if she didn't push her political positions).

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Life said:

You have congresswomen who are actively attempting to hurt our economy. What do you expect us to do, just smile and take it like all the rockets we've taken over the years? How is this anything other than an attack on us?

I have a feeling you wouldn't say anything about certain policies hurting Iran's economy, no?

Or is that too ideological for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I have a feeling you wouldn't say anything about certain policies hurting Iran's economy, no?

Or is that too ideological for you?

Israel and Iran aren't allies in any sense of the word?

It's not that I have an issue with attacking someone's economy. I have an issue attacking an ally's economy for your own personal ideology (never mind the fact that these women are gender/race communists).

Let me put it this way. We (Israel) aren't calling for sanctions on India's economy despite their actions in Kashmir.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US sees one as an ally and the other as not.

They are also allied with Saudi Arabia. The concept of being an ally to the west is arbitrary and based on strategic location, blood money and resources more so than any actual principles.

I would have no problem with... not being allies with Saudi Arabia anymore because of ethical reasons. They bomb school buses and open air markets in Yemen.

This sort of geopolitical foreign policy is the ideology of neoconservatives and neoliberals that ruined parts of the world.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The US sees one as an ally and the other as not.

They are also allied with Saudi Arabia. The concept of being an ally to the west is arbitrary and based on strategic location, blood money and resources more so than any actual principles.

I would have no problem with... not being allies with Saudi Arabia anymore because of ethical reasons. They bomb school buses and open air markets in Yemen.

Geopolitical foreign policy is the ideology of neoconservatives and neoliberals that ruined parts of the world.

I would also prefer not to be friends with the Saudis. But the reality of the situation means that I have to deal with a nation that has legalized slavery. I don't bitch and complain about that... because I prefer not going back to war (I really hope that I'm not the only person here who has actually done military service).

Also, geopolitical foreign policy didn't ruin the Middle East. This area hasn't been stable since... well, go back to Sumeria, I suppose.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Life said:


Also, geopolitical foreign policy didn't ruin the Middle East. This area hasn't been stable since... well, go back to Sumeria, I suppose.

There's an argument to be made that foreign policy definitely did ruin the middle east. Most post Ottoman borders were made by western powers after all. Putting down the Ottoman's like a sick dog was definitely something Europe could do since the Ottoman's thought it was funny to bumble into WWI on the losing side but the new nations that were formed have turned out to be a very flawed construction. And then there's the creation of israel which definitely caused some disruption or Western influence on Persia eventually leading to the overthrow of the Shajh and the Iran we know today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Life said:

because I prefer not going back to war (I really hope that I'm not the only person here who has actually done military service).

Not sure how not being friends with Saudi Arabia would start a war. Countries are already scared that the US is going to topple them (for somewhat good reason).

The point was that Israel being an ally of the US elite means jack shit when it comes to what's best for America. You as a nationalist as you've described yourself before should know this.

And no, I have no desire for military service. If my country had more dignity to do the right things then perhaps I very much would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bring up military service because it has nothing to do with "pride for your country" and all that jazz. What it really does is teach you the actual value of a human life. Usually, those who have never served are either relatively naive when it comes to conflicts (example: believing that morality matters as opposed to being realistic) or they are absurdly cavalier with other people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There's an argument to be made that foreign policy definitely did ruin the middle east.

I mean I'd go with failure to secularize into the post-modern ethos + the lingering influence of Old World religiosity in defining social values and maintaining civil order, in place of legal rationalism and humanist ethics has ruined the middle east.

...but sure... 
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I mean I'd go with failure to secularize into the post-modern ethos + the lingering influence of Old World religiosity in defining social values and maintaining civil order, in place of legal rationalism and humanist ethics has ruined the middle east.

...but sure... 
 

See, this, I can agree with you on. Minus the post-modern ethos where I'd substitute modernism instead. But that's simply because I highly disagree with post-modernism in all forms in a fundamental sense.

I've mentioned at least once that the Ultra-Orthodox here are nothing more than parasitic leeches and that's still a lot better than a lot of the religious sects in the general area.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I mean I'd go with failure to secularize into the post-modern ethos + the lingering influence of Old World religiosity in defining social values and maintaining civil order, in place of legal rationalism and humanist ethics has ruined the middle east.

...but sure... 

If you look at pictures of Iran and Afghanistan in the 70s you will see that religious theocracy was a more recent thing. But this doesn't necessarily mean that what came before it was good. Iran had a backlash against the coup of 53.

And if you look at the Iranian revolution, well you'll see that it was a rebellion against a US-installed system and the Shah. 

A corrupt US and UK backed regime leading to an Islamic theocracy. Perhaps if Mosaddegh was allowed to continue you would have your (more) secular state. We can also talk about the US aligning themselves with the Mujaheddin and jihadists when it suits them.

That's without going into the entirety of Latin America. I've never said that there haven't been domestic problems in those regions but foreign policy has exacerbated them.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Soapbar said:

David Koch dead at 79

 

I've been thinking of something else to say to go along with that but I'm not supposed to speak ill of the dead so I'll just leave it at that.

The best thing about today is that Charles Koch is getting to see just how happy the world is going to be when he croaks
 
Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard about David Koch's death, this quote was the first thing that came to mind:

Quote

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.

Fuck him. He played a large part in the build up of today's horrible political climate. Built up all that wealth selfishly just to drop dead at 79 and leave the country with a Frankenstein's monster and his cult.

6 hours ago, Soapbar said:

I've been thinking of something else to say to go along with that but I'm not supposed to speak ill of the dead so I'll just leave it at that.

That's certainly the rule. I'd say David Koch can count as an exception to it.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

When I heard about David Koch's death, this quote was the first thing that came to mind:

That line is meant to be ironic because Marc Antony didn't think of Caesar as an evil man. Even out of context this would assume that Koch left a bad legacy but was still a good man with those deeds now forgotten.

You should really reread that entire monologue again because you horribly misused that line here.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 3:53 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

There's an argument to be made that foreign policy definitely did ruin the middle east. Most post Ottoman borders were made by western powers after all. Putting down the Ottoman's like a sick dog was definitely something Europe could do since the Ottoman's thought it was funny to bumble into WWI on the losing side but the new nations that were formed have turned out to be a very flawed construction. And then there's the creation of israel which definitely caused some disruption or Western influence on Persia eventually leading to the overthrow of the Shajh and the Iran we know today. 

The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Whilst making promises to the Arabs, France and Britain decided to give themselves Syria-Lebanon, and Transjordan-Iraq + Palestine, and concurrently promising a vague "national homeland" (they intentionally never said "nation-state") to Zionist Jews. I think Britain controlled part of Yemen for a time b/c it was a good stopping point en route to India. And Afghanistan, which is really more Central Asia but gets lumped in with the Middle East from time to time, I'm aware is somewhat a buffer state agreed to by Russia and Britain to keep Russia from getting too close to British India. 

A Middle East professor I once had, if you had to get a quick answer no lecture from them on the question, said they'd blame the British when it comes to who originally started the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To be fair, they did recently publish a book on the world history of the Balfour Declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...