[US Foreign Policy] Declare Victory and Come Home

16162636466

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man

    What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?

    To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?


    A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.


    It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.

    Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.

    Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?

    One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?

    The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."

    Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.

    I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...

    But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.

    You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar

    Anybody got a timeline on the bolded? Because I kind of get the feeling the moment it was 51% popular is the moment the party switched course.

    I do think you are right about what needs to be published for opinion to shift on Israel. But it would also be necessary to pound that drum for years. People will make excuses. People will call it outliers. So you have to keep pounding and pounding the repeated actions into their brains.

    The shift is already happening. Jewish-American people of my own age cohort and younger tend to fall into the second/third wave of American assimilation, where the "American" part of their identity becomes as important as their ethnic heritage, which has brought about a different viewpoint for them with regards to Israel and Zionism. But while it's happening,the old patterns still have power, and thus AIPAC can still use charges of antisemitism as a weapon against politicians whom they feel are not deferential enough.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FencingsaxElvenshaepainfulPleasance
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man

    What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?

    To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?


    A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.


    It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.

    Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.

    Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?

    One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?

    The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."

    Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.

    I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...

    But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.

    You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar

    Anybody got a timeline on the bolded? Because I kind of get the feeling the moment it was 51% popular is the moment the party switched course.

    I do think you are right about what needs to be published for opinion to shift on Israel. But it would also be necessary to pound that drum for years. People will make excuses. People will call it outliers. So you have to keep pounding and pounding the repeated actions into their brains.

    It was both.

    Obama speaking out did shift views on the issue among the black community according to polling:
    https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/05/27/153735584/polls-show-obamas-support-for-gay-marriage-influencing-blacks

    But at the same time, support for gay marriage had been trending majorly upward before he made his announcement:
    https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
    From 39/51 support/oppose in 2008 to 48/43 in 2012 according to this poll.

    There was a consistent rise in support for years and years, even before Obama was in office, before he shifted his stance.

    And, to get back to the Israel question, people have been beating that drum for years. It's just not garnering the same reaction as you see with gay marriage in those polls.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited May 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.
    Which is why castigating Biden for his shitty stance is necessary. The thing y'all are saying we need to do is exactly what we are trying to do. We are voicing opposition to bad policy in public forums and trying to persuade others to join in opposition. Then we are told "you won't win because not enough people are with you on it!"

    We know. We want you all and others to be with us on it. We want Democratic politicians to fear saying things like Biden's statement. Pillorying him is part of that. Quasi-defense on the basis of American apathy or love of Israel is not. "Biden's stance is unacceptable" is a much more productive position to take than "Biden's position is understandable" if you actually agree that this issue matters and that US policy should be changed.

    Kaputa on
    JavenusernaengwenCarson VendettaStyrofoam SammichCaedwyrMeeqeHefflingKetBraDee KaeDamnItCohaagenElendilpainfulPleasanceKamar
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.
    Which is why castigating Biden for his shitty stance is necessary. The thing y'all are saying we need to do is exactly what we are trying to do. We are voicing opposition to bad policy in public forums and trying to persuade others to join in opposition. Then we are told "you won't win because not enough people are with you on it!"

    We know. We want you all and others to be with us on it. We want Democratic politicians to fear saying things like Biden's statement. Pillorying him is part of that. Quasi-defense on the basis of American apathy or love of Israel is not. "Biden's stance is unacceptable" is a much more productive position to take than "Biden's position is understandable" if you actually agree that this issue matters and that US policy should be changed.

    THANK YOU ALSO

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    JavenuserCarson VendettaKetBraDee KaeDamnItCohaagenpainfulPleasance
  • GiantGeek2020GiantGeek2020 Registered User regular

    Kaputa wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.
    Which is why castigating Biden for his shitty stance is necessary. The thing y'all are saying we need to do is exactly what we are trying to do. We are voicing opposition to bad policy in public forums and trying to persuade others to join in opposition. Then we are told "you won't win because not enough people are with you on it!"

    We know. We want you all and others to be with us on it. We want Democratic politicians to fear saying things like Biden's statement. Pillorying him is part of that. Quasi-defense on the basis of American apathy or love of Israel is not. "Biden's stance is unacceptable" is a much more productive position to take than "Biden's position is understandable" if you actually agree that this issue matters and that US policy should be changed.

    Well you have certainly persuaded and altered my views about Israel in the many years I have been on this forum. So I guess it does work.

    Of course I guess that makes me right as well. This is going to take a damn long time to fix. Decades. I hope we see better policy on this by 2030.

    Biscuits 3:16 "food Jesus is dead and you killed him"
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 23
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.
    Which is why castigating Biden for his shitty stance is necessary. The thing y'all are saying we need to do is exactly what we are trying to do. We are voicing opposition to bad policy in public forums and trying to persuade others to join in opposition. Then we are told "you won't win because not enough people are with you on it!"

    We know. We want you all and others to be with us on it. We want Democratic politicians to fear saying things like Biden's statement. Pillorying him is part of that. Quasi-defense on the basis of American apathy or love of Israel is not. "Biden's stance is unacceptable" is a much more productive position to take than "Biden's position is understandable" if you actually agree that this issue matters and that US policy should be changed.

    Is that what "Biden wants Palestinians to die" and "Biden has always hated the Palestinians" is? Or going after other people who's position was "I find this disappointing but unsurprising"? Cause that doesn't seem like what it is to me. Especially when, as I've pointed out, the attacks themselves aren't even really that accurate as to the positions Biden is actually taking. This goal does not seem to match with what we are seeing in this discussion.

    And if we're gonna make this a question of shifting politics then you open the floor to questions like "Are hot-take on twitter attacking the only person besides Donald Trump who's going to be President next year useful in improving the US-Israeli political situation the way I want to?". And "Is saying Biden wants to kill Palestinians cause he hates them actually useful towards the goal I'm saying I'm pursiong?". And a discussion on the popularity and electoral viability of public support for these kind of positions that a lot of people you are saying are trying to shift the conversation have actually been extremely resistant to throughout this thread. And all sorts of other questions and ideas around the politics of this issue, many of which just really don't have a ton to do with foreign policy directly.

    shryke on
    AngelHedgiejmcdonaldFencingsaxElvenshaeNetscapeMarathonLord_AsmodeusProhassBullheadSmrtnikMonwynOneAngryPossum
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 23
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.

    this is circular reasoning though

    there is no public support for any alternative course on the I/P issue because (as the discussion of polling on the previous page demonstrates) the american public is desperately uninformed about the issue. They know that it's kind of a mess and we've been trying to get a resolution for a while and that's really about it. People don't know there are alternative positions because basically nobody is out there advocating any.

    so it's frustrating to hear democratic partisans argue essentially "we're doing the best we can" when they aren't actually doing anything. A U.S. president (or candidate) could do a lot; they don't because they don't think it's worthwhile.

    and for the record, I get why they aren't eager to wade into it. It's a complicated issue that will probably never be resolved successfully and that few of their constituents really care about. A U.S. president (or candidate) has no real incentive to do anything other than kick the can down the road... but I for one expect political leaders to be bellweathers in such situations, at least from time to time.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    Styrofoam SammichGiantGeek2020Kamar
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    At least we've gotten to the point where we'll just say Biden should get the kid gloves because of his party.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    CaedwyrJaysonFourMagellDamnItCohaagenpainfulPleasance
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Biden was brave enough to run for the most powerful office so let's not be mean to him on Twitter

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    "Biden says he opposes Israeli expansion but does not do anything to stop it".

    One side thinks this statement comes from Biden reacting to broadly held American political beliefs and opinions.

    One side thinks this statement is indicative that Biden more or believes that what Israel is doing is OK.

    Are politicians proactive or reactive? How much do their words and actions reflect their secret heart? Does it matter? Duck season, or wabbit season?. This seems to be the core difference being argued here.

    Is this accurate? Am I off base? Genuinely trying to understand this exhausting merry-go-round of debate.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 23
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main issue is that politicians in the states can generally not even bring themselves to say such as ‘shooting protestors is unacceptable’

    Biden opposes annexation; okay, great. What’s he willing to do about it? Fucking nothing, that’s what

    "Willing to do" and "Can actually do" are two different things here. With what Netanyahu has been up to for over a decade now, we've seen the limits of what even the President can accomplish wrt the US-Israeli relationship.

    a presidential candidate could say (for example) that future military aid will require a cessation of israeli expansion; they are our ally and we will defend them, but that commitment does not extend to seizing additional contested territory.

    but instead what he'll do is oppose annexation, then in practically in the same breath say that he won't put any preconditions on military aid. The same guy who four years ago was saying we had an obligation to do whatever we can to push israel to stop its expansion is now tacitly endorsing it.

    I mean shit, Joe, Netanyahu came to congress and practically took a dump on the floor; what's it gonna take to stiffen you up on this?

    ...

    I don't think we will get better policy on this topic until we start demanding that politicians actually take better positions; democratic candidates love to do this thing where they signal to their base that they want to restrain israel, then get into office and ehhhh status quo (I give some credit to obama for being the only one in recent memory to take an honest stab at it.)

    Thank you

    And you won't be able to start demanding that politicians take better positions until you have enough public support that you are scarier to the politicians than the wrath of Evangelicals and AIPAC.

    this is circular reasoning though

    there is no public support for any alternative course on the I/P issue because (as the discussion of polling on the previous page demonstrates) the american public is desperately uninformed about the issue. They know that it's kind of a mess and we've been trying to get a resolution for a while and that's really about it. People don't know there are alternative positions because basically nobody is out there advocating any.

    so it's frustrating to hear democratic partisans argue essentially "we're doing the best we can" when they aren't actually doing anything. A U.S. president (or candidate) could do a lot; they don't because they don't think it's worthwhile.

    and for the record, I get why they aren't eager to wade into it. It's a complicated issue that will probably never be resolved successfully and that few of their constituents really care about. A U.S. president (or candidate) has no real incentive to do anything other than kick the can down the road... but I for one expect political leaders to be bellweathers in such situations, at least from time to time.

    Except this is wrong, as I've pointed out several times now. People having been pushing alternate positions for a long time now. It just hasn't done much to change the public consensus in the US.

    Arguably Netanyahu and the general right-ward trend of Israeli politics is doing more on this issue then any advocacy.

    shryke on
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    RE American policy toward Israel:

    I think people are generally irrational actors. American voters are both uninformed about what is happening in Israel (with the usual suspects of poor media and moneyed interest in politics responsible) and uneducated in how to parse this information and make informed opinions.

    To put it another way: to the average American voter, foreign policy is a question of "do we kill em or not kill em?"

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I mean, why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets the American political establishment so much flak compared to most other issues is what really puzzles me. Tons of other nations do worse, but our ties with them are not scrutinized as much.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I mean, why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets the American political establishment so much flak compared to most other issues is what really puzzles me. Tons of other nations do worse, but our ties with them are not scrutinized as much.

    Partly because the US played a truly enormous role in the establishment of Israel as a state, including but not limiting to providing it with the same arms it now uses to subjugate the Palestinian people.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Colorful Extrovert Registered User regular


    Washington Post reporter.

    JESUS CHRIST NOT NOW, WHAT THE FUCK?

    ForarOghulkNobeardFencingsaxBlackDragon480shrykeElvenshaeSkeithEmerlmaster999SleepKarozErlecJaysonFourMorganVCalicaNetscapeLord_AsmodeusBullheadTicaldfjamGnome-InterruptusDoctorArchTNTrooperKamaremp123
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
    edited May 23
    Javen wrote: »
    I mean, why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets the American political establishment so much flak compared to most other issues is what really puzzles me. Tons of other nations do worse, but our ties with them are not scrutinized as much.

    Partly because the US played a truly enormous role in the establishment of Israel as a state, including but not limiting to providing it with the same arms it now uses to subjugate the Palestinian people.

    I'm not sure that's entirely true given the land was conquered by the British for the Zionists in 1918, controlled by the British for the zionists until 1947, and ceded to the zionists to create a state of Israel for the Jewish people. The Israelis then got most of their arms from the French until the Six Day War, after which the United States sold military assets to the Israelis. The US did not get fully involved diplomatically with Israel until 1973 when, *drum roll* they negotiated a cease fire in the Yom Kippur War. e: In fact the Israelis weren't declared a major ally of the US until 1989 under Bush senior.

    Oghulk on
    raoADVy.png
    jmcdonaldGiantGeek2020TryCatchershrykeElvenshaeNSDFRandKetBraLord_AsmodeusOneAngryPossumpainfulPleasance
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Who and what are Zionist in this context?

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • OghulkOghulk Negative externality Low-energy fuckwitRegistered User regular
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Zionist....it depends.

    It used to be people who advocated for the creation of a Jewish state. Several different locations were proposed, but a return to the homeland of the Jewish people in Israel was the argument that won out.

    Nowadays, you will seen it thrown around as an insult at those who wish to see Israel to annex more land from Palestine, or used as an insult against all Israeli Jews.

    GiantGeek2020BlackDragon480SkeithknitdanTicaldfjam
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    "Biden says he opposes Israeli expansion but does not do anything to stop it".

    One side thinks this statement comes from Biden reacting to broadly held American political beliefs and opinions.

    One side thinks this statement is indicative that Biden more or believes that what Israel is doing is OK.

    Are politicians proactive or reactive? How much do their words and actions reflect their secret heart? Does it matter? Duck season, or wabbit season?. This seems to be the core difference being argued here.

    Is this accurate? Am I off base? Genuinely trying to understand this exhausting merry-go-round of debate.

    That seems to be at least one of the core philosophical divides, yeah

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited May 23
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    I mean, why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets the American political establishment so much flak compared to most other issues is what really puzzles me. Tons of other nations do worse, but our ties with them are not scrutinized as much.

    Partly because the US played a truly enormous role in the establishment of Israel as a state, including but not limiting to providing it with the same arms it now uses to subjugate the Palestinian people.

    I'm not sure that's entirely true given the land was conquered by the British for the Zionists in 1918, controlled by the British for the zionists until 1947, and ceded to the zionists to create a state of Israel for the Jewish people. The Israelis then got most of their arms from the French until the Six Day War, after which the United States sold military assets to the Israelis. The US did not get fully involved diplomatically with Israel until 1973 when, *drum roll* they negotiated a cease fire in the Yom Kippur War. e: In fact the Israelis weren't declared a major ally of the US until 1989 under Bush senior.

    Yes and no on the until 1973 part. Eisenhower forced them and the UK and French to stand down during the Suez Crisis in 1956, which was our first major move regarding the state.

    And we had official ties and began selling defensive armaments under Eisenhower, followed by allowing them to purchase offensive Arms, off limits to even most NATO allies in the 1960s (F 4 Phantoms, Hawk AAMs, the majority of their radar systems, etc...) Kennedy initally agreed to the offensive Arms sales on the stipulation that Israel stopped developing weapons grade fissile material at Dimona/Nagev (with French assistance), but neither him nor Johnson made that public knowledge, so the Meir government bought about 100 million worth of crap over a couple years and just kept on making plutonium.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    NSDFRandGiantGeek2020OneAngryPossum
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    JESUS CHRIST NOT NOW, WHAT THE FUCK?

    [flashes back to reports of Trump, in his first days in office, asking general why we can’t use Nukes despite having them on hand]





    [just... stares into the distance for a bit]

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    BlackDragon480CelestialBadgerDarkPrimusElvenshaeNobeardSkeithEmerlmaster999FencingsaxGaddezSleepHefflingCommander ZoomJaysonFourLord_AsmodeusGnome-Interruptusautono-wally, erotibot300TNTrooperMartini_Philosopheremp123Mayabird
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The basic argument here is would moving the embassy achieve anything besides pissing in Bibi's mouth. And honestly the answer is complicated.

    You're also writing off a diplomatic snub to Bibi as something without value. I'd argue that "don't pick a side in US domestic politics, unless you're happy about staying on that side when they're out of power" is probably also a message worth sending in and of itself.

    Is that how it would actually play out though? I doubt it. The whole reason Bibi is happy to stick his finger into US politics is because he knows the american political establishment and the media and the like will cover for him doing so.
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    JESUS CHRIST NOT NOW, WHAT THE FUCK?

    What's the point of being President if you can't play with all the toys?
    And just think of the campaign ads, when he gets to push the button...

    Ticaldfjam
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited May 23
    So

    Blustering at China to distract from his shitty handling of the pandemic

    And

    Considering starting nuclear arms tests again

    And

    About to enter a major election that he may lose thanks to said shit show of handling the pandemic




    No no problems here nope nothing possibly could ignite into a maddening powder keg with an unstable narcissist holding the match nope


    EDIT: jesus, phone

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    ElvenshaeGaddezJaysonFourOrcaDee KaeCalicaLord_AsmodeusBullheadNobearddurandal4532Elendil
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Out of curiousity, is there anything actually preventing trump from spontaneously ordering the US to invade say... Chile after the election in order to leave as big of a shit sandwhich in bidens lap should he lose?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Out of curiousity, is there anything actually preventing trump from spontaneously ordering the US to invade say... Chile after the election in order to leave as big of a shit sandwhich in bidens lap should he lose?

    Theoretically Congress is supposed to check that power. *sigh*

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    OrcaMorganVNetscapeElvenshaeBullheadTicaldfjamGnome-InterruptusNobeardTNTrooperMayabird
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »


    Washington Post reporter.

    JESUS CHRIST NOT NOW, WHAT THE FUCK?

    The powers that be wont let him press the button so he's trying to find a way to get to press the button even if it's a big wet fart of a power play.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    TicaldfjamGnome-InterruptusXaquin
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    "Biden says he opposes Israeli expansion but does not do anything to stop it".

    One side thinks this statement comes from Biden reacting to broadly held American political beliefs and opinions.

    One side thinks this statement is indicative that Biden more or believes that what Israel is doing is OK.

    Are politicians proactive or reactive? How much do their words and actions reflect their secret heart? Does it matter? Duck season, or wabbit season?. This seems to be the core difference being argued here.

    Is this accurate? Am I off base? Genuinely trying to understand this exhausting merry-go-round of debate.

    the question is basically how much should we expect our leaders to drive public opinion as opposed to reflecting it. Like yeah, a politician who opposes Likud et al in any serious way is gonna take it on the chin from their domestic lobby. Should they do it anyway? I say yes; other people say no.

    I actually tend to think that if we could see into Biden's heart of hearts or whatever, we'd actually find a position that's fairly simpatico with a lot of the posters in this thread; I mean he was in the obama administration and is willing to criticize israeli expansion. But he's unlikely to campaign on it

    NREqxl5.jpg
    Bullhead
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Hackerman Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man

    What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?

    To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?


    A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.


    It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.

    Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.

    Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?

    One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?

    The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."

    Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.

    I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...

    But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.

    You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar

    Anybody got a timeline on the bolded? Because I kind of get the feeling the moment it was 51% popular is the moment the party switched course.

    I do think you are right about what needs to be published for opinion to shift on Israel. But it would also be necessary to pound that drum for years. People will make excuses. People will call it outliers. So you have to keep pounding and pounding the repeated actions into their brains.

    He started (publicly) softening and doing some splashy stuff before the polling bump.

    https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/

    Then after high profile people in the party started talking about how unfair the status quo was, favorability dramatically increased and they moved to legalizing marriage equality.

    https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

    Styrofoam Sammich
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    The rest of that thread is similarly "Oh god no why"






    Because of COURSE this is a dick waving measure directed at Russia and China.


    of course.


    Is the Russia aspect a bizarre dysfunctional mix of jealousy and appeasement being at war with each other in Trump's head, or is it because doing this starts to give everyone, as the rest of the thread notes, carte blanche to go start doing nuclear tests of their own again?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I suspect some good sized chunk of his reasoning here is that he really wants to nuke something.

    Gnome-InterruptusNobeardFencingsaxElvenshaeCelestialBadgerJaysonFourpainfulPleasanceLord_AsmodeusMartini_PhilosopherKamarMayabird
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I suspect some good sized chunk of his reasoning here is that he really wants to nuke something.

    What about whales?

    He's clearly Nelson Muntz carried to it's logical conclusion.

    JaysonFour
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Where would you test a nuke nowadays? Probably a domestic desert I guess. So Trump really wants to use a nuke and in the end the country he’ll nuke is the USA?

    PSN: Honkalot
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Where would you test a nuke nowadays? Probably a domestic desert I guess. So Trump really wants to use a nuke and in the end the country he’ll nuke is the USA?

    Probably?

    The US has a long history of irradiating its citizens via nuclear testing in the desert.

    E.g., a map of the iodine-131 exposure, in rads, for the US due to Nevada test site tests:
    US_fallout_exposure.png

    Commander ZoomIncenjucarFencingsaxGnome-InterruptuspainfulPleasanceLord_Asmodeus
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I assume we've already left whatever agreements limited above ground testing

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I assume we've already left whatever agreements limited above ground testing

    I mean, that takes a lot of effort, so I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SoggybiscuitSoggybiscuit At the edge of spacetime lies a path with no end.Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I assume we've already left we'll ignore whatever agreements limited above ground testing

    I fixed it. What are the Democrats going to do, impeach him?

    He'll just laugh it off and use it drum up cash from stupid people.

    Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
    SleepFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthNobeard
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Where would you test a nuke nowadays? Probably a domestic desert I guess. So Trump really wants to use a nuke and in the end the country he’ll nuke is the USA?

    You could always find a Pacific island to render uninhabitable, that's always been the fallback

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Nobeard
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Where would you test a nuke nowadays? Probably a domestic desert I guess. So Trump really wants to use a nuke and in the end the country he’ll nuke is the USA?

    You could always find a Pacific island to render uninhabitable, that's always been the fallback

    Hawaii's been annoying the Republican party recently.

    Elvenshae
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited May 24
    KetBra wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Where would you test a nuke nowadays? Probably a domestic desert I guess. So Trump really wants to use a nuke and in the end the country he’ll nuke is the USA?

    You could always find a Pacific island to render uninhabitable, that's always been the fallback

    https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/how-the-unlucky-lucky-dragon-birthed-an-era-of-nuclear-fear/

    Accidentally murdering some poor fishermen and causing an international incident would be on brand for Trump.

    Nobeard on
    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    JaysonFourNetscape
Sign In or Register to comment.