I don't get why peace with North Korea should be contingent on them not seeking nuclear weapons. Shouldn't it be contingent upon us not wanting to attack them unless they commit an act of war first, and them not wanting to attack us unless we commit an act of war first? I'm pretty sure that's how peace works.
For all practical purposes, we are at peace. Whats being negotiated is normalization of relations - diplomacy, travel, and trade. A formal peace is the first step on the road to that. North Korea is the last place we should be normalizing relations with.
With the PRC getting away with genocide right now with barely any objection from anyone in the international community, I really don't see much hope for human progress globally. North Korea being allowed to modernize while still being a totalitarian state will just be another item on the shit list for the world I guess.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I don't get why peace with North Korea should be contingent on them not seeking nuclear weapons. Shouldn't it be contingent upon us not wanting to attack them unless they commit an act of war first, and them not wanting to attack us unless we commit an act of war first? I'm pretty sure that's how peace works.
For all practical purposes, we are at peace. Whats being negotiated is normalization of relations - diplomacy, travel, and trade. A formal peace is the first step on the road to that. North Korea is the last place we should be normalizing relations with.
With the PRC getting away with genocide right now with barely any objection from anyone in the international community, I really don't see much hope for human progress globally. North Korea being allowed to modernize while still being a totalitarian state will just be another item on the shit list for the world I guess.
Literally everything you're saying here could be mirrored with the US and Saudi Arabia committing genocide in Yemen. Why on earth should anyone take the US seriously while our totalitarian client state starves millions of people.
I don't get why peace with North Korea should be contingent on them not seeking nuclear weapons. Shouldn't it be contingent upon us not wanting to attack them unless they commit an act of war first, and them not wanting to attack us unless we commit an act of war first? I'm pretty sure that's how peace works.
For all practical purposes, we are at peace. Whats being negotiated is normalization of relations - diplomacy, travel, and trade. A formal peace is the first step on the road to that. North Korea is the last place we should be normalizing relations with.
With the PRC getting away with genocide right now with barely any objection from anyone in the international community, I really don't see much hope for human progress globally. North Korea being allowed to modernize while still being a totalitarian state will just be another item on the shit list for the world I guess.
Literally everything you're saying here could be mirrored with the US and Saudi Arabia committing genocide in Yemen. Why on earth should anyone take the US seriously while our totalitarian client state starves millions of people.
Yeah I'd like to send the Saudi royal family to hell too. The fact that globalization economically entrenched us with utterly immoral actors is one of my core grievances with the way things are.
The fact is that, the West owes its standard of living to being on top of a system of global economic abuse that Western economists and philosophers thought would be alleviated by liberal market forces, but have instead in reality been made worse and worse. Adding North Korea to the list of abusive actors free to engage in global trade continues to send us in the wrong direction.
The worst part is that we're on the edge of being kicked off the top of the pyramid by the PRC, and we gave them the opportunity to do it. A moral rot we let into our economic system that has spread unchecked.
Its the replacement of a system that at least nominally aspired to greater human rights and freedoms by one that only cares for stability and exchange without any regard for human dignity. It is a regression of all human progress.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Are they mad because she's wrong or because she's right?
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't think that saying a lobbying group will advocate for a certain position is crazy talk. Neither is the fact that people and groups will donate money to politicians that they think will advance their interests.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I don't think that saying a lobbying group will advocate for a certain position is crazy talk. Neither is the fact that people and groups will donate money to politicians that they think will advance their interests.
The debate might hinge around the acceptability of allowing lobbyists for a foreign nation to have such influence.
+8
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't think that saying a lobbying group will advocate for a certain position is crazy talk. Neither is the fact that people and groups will donate money to politicians that they think will advance their interests.
The debate might hinge around the acceptability of allowing lobbyists for a foreign nation to have such influence.
Quite. At least in Israel's case, they're doing it out in the open, AIPAC basically does what it says on the tin. Now compare that to the various think tanks around DC that run on Saudi money or the fact finding tours that politicians go on that I'm sure don't involve getting wined and dined in five-star hotels.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Do we think a canceled exercise or two is seriously going to impact our ability to operate there? Do we really expect North Korea to negotiate while we're practicing mass murder next door?
Exercises aren't just about testing and training the troops. Theyre also about demonstrating to potential targets without giving away too much material information. This is why they're not secret and outcomes of competitive ones are usually public - a few years back the media talked about a French ship "embarrassing" US submarines by wiping out a number of them untouched in a war game, but the point of that was to let the world know that NATO had a new sub hunter that could flawlessly find and hit an attack sub whose stealth capabilities were by now well known to the world, so that everyone would look at their sub fleet and know better than get it near one.
With rational actors (And NK plays it up but has not been half as irrational as they act) keeping the outcome of armed conflict on the table like that helps keep actual conflict off.
AIPAC have got to have it both ways for a long time: they have lobbied for essentially the worst of rightwing israeli policy, while portraying themselves to the U.S. domestic audience as the advocate for all that is Right and Good about our relationship with israel. The danger for them is their cause beginning to appear as though it's actually a contested, partisan issue, which is why any critic has to be attacked immediately not just for being wrong but for being an idiotic crank
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+26
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Ummm... So I guess Ted Cruz doesn’t understand that Benjamins refers to Benjamin Franklin, whose face is on a hundred dollar bill, and not some random Jewish guy named Benjamin?
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Ummm... So I guess Ted Cruz doesn’t understand that Benjamins refers to Benjamin Franklin, whose face is on a hundred dollar bill, and not some random Jewish guy named Benjamin?
To make it clear here, Ted Cruz's point was as follows:
Ilhan Omar tweets about a Jewish PAC taking actions motivated solely by money.
Jewish people are stereotyped as caring excessively about money.
Therefore, Omar is being anti-semitic by accusing a Jewish group of caring about money.
AIPAC have got to have it both ways for a long time: they have lobbied for essentially the worst of rightwing israeli policy, while portraying themselves to the U.S. domestic audience as the advocate for all that is Right and Good about our relationship with israel. The danger for them is their cause beginning to appear as though it's actually a contested, partisan issue, which is why any critic has to be attacked immediately not just for being wrong but for being an idiotic crank
It's more then that. AIPAC is committed to making support for Israel not a political issue at all. They strive and largely succeed at making it a bedrock foundation of american politics, like the word "freedom" or american exceptionalism. They want to exert influence on all politicians without it even looking like they are a lobbying group at all. (see - the shock at someone not going on the trip they send every congressperson on to Israel) Any comment on the very fact that AIPAC and the Pro-Israel lobby even exists must be attacked with full force because the very idea that they actually lobby at all, that they actually influence politicians, threatens the position they strive to maintain.
+16
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Is very interesting to see Pelosi reigning in the attempts to go against foreign policy orthodoxy from a part of the younger generation of Congress.
Feels that the Dem party hasn't had a boiling over moment like the GOP had when the base was faced with the humilliation of having a Bush representing them after Bush Jr. Pelosi so far has been able to hold the reigns, but we'll see what happens.
I don't know wtf "yasskween" is supposed to be but there's nothing surprising here. The Israeli lobby is mostly non-partisan and generally dislikes people like Bibi getting in the way of that.
Pelosi is probably representing the vast majority of the caucus here.
This is one of the good things about getting more diverse voices into government though. People start saying new things.
I think this also represents a greater failure of the Left as represented in US politics: a lack of cohesive foreign policy platform. Ideally, Omar would have had immediate support from AOC, Sanders, etc and forced a prolonged to-do that publicized the shameful and bipartisan nature of US-Israel relations.
Honestly it’s a bit funny since former majority leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted essentially the same thing about Jewish interests influencing politics but dressed it up with a bit more dog-whistling and no one really made any kind of big deal about it at all.
That's the pathetic state of anti-semitism in the US though. Mention Jews and money in any context whatsoever and the liberals will join with people peddling Soros conspiracies to condemn you but propping up a right wing lobbying group as standing for all Jews is just fine.
95% of the anti bigotry in this country is just performative nonsense.
+18
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
That's the pathetic state of anti-semitism in the US though. Mention Jews and money in any context whatsoever and the liberals will join with people peddling Soros conspiracies to condemn you but propping up a right wing lobbying group as standing for all Jews is just fine.
95% of the anti bigotry in this country is just performative nonsense.
It speaks to the effectiveness of anti-semite as a smear - nobody knows what it is, but if someone has politics that are otherwise broadly appealing, then it's one of the easier ways to smear them as Bad, Actually. This is visible in the recent shift in the UK from trying to smear Corbyn as sexist to criticizing him as anti-semitic, but of course the argument gets reliably brought out whenever there's criticism of the state of Israel, notwithstanding that it's problematic to say the least to conflate Jewish people with the existence and actions of the Israeli state. Of course to make this way worse, it all exists in a context in which the insane death cult that is modern Evangelical political organizations view Israel as necessary to fulfill the apocalypse as depicted in Revelations, which means that a tidy solution is not at all forthcoming.
That's the pathetic state of anti-semitism in the US though. Mention Jews and money in any context whatsoever and the liberals will join with people peddling Soros conspiracies to condemn you but propping up a right wing lobbying group as standing for all Jews is just fine.
95% of the anti bigotry in this country is just performative nonsense.
It speaks to the effectiveness of anti-semite as a smear - nobody knows what it is, but if someone has politics that are otherwise broadly appealing, then it's one of the easier ways to smear them as Bad, Actually. This is visible in the recent shift in the UK from trying to smear Corbyn as sexist to criticizing him as anti-semitic, but of course the argument gets reliably brought out whenever there's criticism of the state of Israel, notwithstanding that it's problematic to say the least to conflate Jewish people with the existence and actions of the Israeli state. Of course to make this way worse, it all exists in a context in which the insane death cult that is modern Evangelical political organizations view Israel as necessary to fulfill the apocalypse as depicted in Revelations, which means that a tidy solution is not at all forthcoming.
Comparing this to the issues Labour and Corbyn have had with anti-semitism is ridiculous (but that's for another thread). For one, Omar's statements weren't actually anti-semitic, though one could read them as such if one squinted hard enough.
I think her apology does a good job of addressing the core criticism while redirecting back to the actual message. I doubt the redirect will make any waves in the news cycle though.
Actually tbh is foreign policy even partisan in the US? I don't think it is at all. Clinton as the Secretary of State was as least as hawkish as a lot of red state Senators I feel
Obama was notable not because he was a Democrat but because he rejected a lot of the cross-party FP commonly held views. And he wasn't exactly notable.
Actually tbh is foreign policy even partisan in the US? I don't think it is at all. Clinton as the Secretary of State was as least as hawkish as a lot of red state Senators I feel
Obama was notable not because he was a Democrat but because he rejected a lot of the cross-party FP commonly held views. And he wasn't exactly notable.
Foreign policy is fairly partisan in the US. It's just partisan within certain parameters. Which is hardly uniquely american or unique to foreign policy.
Actually tbh is foreign policy even partisan in the US? I don't think it is at all. Clinton as the Secretary of State was as least as hawkish as a lot of red state Senators I feel
Obama was notable not because he was a Democrat but because he rejected a lot of the cross-party FP commonly held views. And he wasn't exactly notable.
Foreign policy is fairly partisan in the US. It's just partisan within certain parameters. Which is hardly uniquely american or unique to foreign policy.
The part that disturbs me is that, with Omar as the only vocal critic of Israel in Congress (or one of like two if one of the other newbies is saying similar things and I missed it), Pelosi joining Cruz to criticize her looks like the establishment attempting to draw a red line on what foreign policy views are acceptable. My fear is that this may be effective in dissuading Omar or similarly-minded Democrats from making such criticisms again. Which makes me pessimistic about the US's likelihood of changing it's policy toward Israel and Palestine anytime soon.
Posts
For all practical purposes, we are at peace. Whats being negotiated is normalization of relations - diplomacy, travel, and trade. A formal peace is the first step on the road to that. North Korea is the last place we should be normalizing relations with.
With the PRC getting away with genocide right now with barely any objection from anyone in the international community, I really don't see much hope for human progress globally. North Korea being allowed to modernize while still being a totalitarian state will just be another item on the shit list for the world I guess.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Literally everything you're saying here could be mirrored with the US and Saudi Arabia committing genocide in Yemen. Why on earth should anyone take the US seriously while our totalitarian client state starves millions of people.
Yeah I'd like to send the Saudi royal family to hell too. The fact that globalization economically entrenched us with utterly immoral actors is one of my core grievances with the way things are.
The fact is that, the West owes its standard of living to being on top of a system of global economic abuse that Western economists and philosophers thought would be alleviated by liberal market forces, but have instead in reality been made worse and worse. Adding North Korea to the list of abusive actors free to engage in global trade continues to send us in the wrong direction.
The worst part is that we're on the edge of being kicked off the top of the pyramid by the PRC, and we gave them the opportunity to do it. A moral rot we let into our economic system that has spread unchecked.
Its the replacement of a system that at least nominally aspired to greater human rights and freedoms by one that only cares for stability and exchange without any regard for human dignity. It is a regression of all human progress.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Are they mad because she's wrong or because she's right?
The debate might hinge around the acceptability of allowing lobbyists for a foreign nation to have such influence.
Quite. At least in Israel's case, they're doing it out in the open, AIPAC basically does what it says on the tin. Now compare that to the various think tanks around DC that run on Saudi money or the fact finding tours that politicians go on that I'm sure don't involve getting wined and dined in five-star hotels.
Exercises aren't just about testing and training the troops. Theyre also about demonstrating to potential targets without giving away too much material information. This is why they're not secret and outcomes of competitive ones are usually public - a few years back the media talked about a French ship "embarrassing" US submarines by wiping out a number of them untouched in a war game, but the point of that was to let the world know that NATO had a new sub hunter that could flawlessly find and hit an attack sub whose stealth capabilities were by now well known to the world, so that everyone would look at their sub fleet and know better than get it near one.
With rational actors (And NK plays it up but has not been half as irrational as they act) keeping the outcome of armed conflict on the table like that helps keep actual conflict off.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Ted Cruz is a Republican Senator
Of course this is a bipartisan issue, with Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer standing apart as one of the most extreme voices in support of the apartheid government in Israel, both blaming Palestinians for escalating violence because they 'don't believe in the Torah' and pushing to make boycotting Israel illegal in an AIPAC-produced piece of legislation.
Ummm... So I guess Ted Cruz doesn’t understand that Benjamins refers to Benjamin Franklin, whose face is on a hundred dollar bill, and not some random Jewish guy named Benjamin?
To make it clear here, Ted Cruz's point was as follows:
Ilhan Omar tweets about a Jewish PAC taking actions motivated solely by money.
Jewish people are stereotyped as caring excessively about money.
Therefore, Omar is being anti-semitic by accusing a Jewish group of caring about money.
Considering Israel a bad actor on the world stage and wanting to limit its influence on us politicians is not antisemitic.
Conflating support of the right wing Zionist regime in Israel with support of the Jewish people actually encourages antisemitism.
Which anti-semites is she supporting?
It's more then that. AIPAC is committed to making support for Israel not a political issue at all. They strive and largely succeed at making it a bedrock foundation of american politics, like the word "freedom" or american exceptionalism. They want to exert influence on all politicians without it even looking like they are a lobbying group at all. (see - the shock at someone not going on the trip they send every congressperson on to Israel) Any comment on the very fact that AIPAC and the Pro-Israel lobby even exists must be attacked with full force because the very idea that they actually lobby at all, that they actually influence politicians, threatens the position they strive to maintain.
Something called the Center For Responsive Politics
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q05 &cycle=2018&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U
Feels that the Dem party hasn't had a boiling over moment like the GOP had when the base was faced with the humilliation of having a Bush representing them after Bush Jr. Pelosi so far has been able to hold the reigns, but we'll see what happens.
Pelosi is probably representing the vast majority of the caucus here.
This is one of the good things about getting more diverse voices into government though. People start saying new things.
And I think this statement from her is reasonable.
I think this also represents a greater failure of the Left as represented in US politics: a lack of cohesive foreign policy platform. Ideally, Omar would have had immediate support from AOC, Sanders, etc and forced a prolonged to-do that publicized the shameful and bipartisan nature of US-Israel relations.
Edit: Sorry didn’t see mod post
95% of the anti bigotry in this country is just performative nonsense.
It speaks to the effectiveness of anti-semite as a smear - nobody knows what it is, but if someone has politics that are otherwise broadly appealing, then it's one of the easier ways to smear them as Bad, Actually. This is visible in the recent shift in the UK from trying to smear Corbyn as sexist to criticizing him as anti-semitic, but of course the argument gets reliably brought out whenever there's criticism of the state of Israel, notwithstanding that it's problematic to say the least to conflate Jewish people with the existence and actions of the Israeli state. Of course to make this way worse, it all exists in a context in which the insane death cult that is modern Evangelical political organizations view Israel as necessary to fulfill the apocalypse as depicted in Revelations, which means that a tidy solution is not at all forthcoming.
Comparing this to the issues Labour and Corbyn have had with anti-semitism is ridiculous (but that's for another thread). For one, Omar's statements weren't actually anti-semitic, though one could read them as such if one squinted hard enough.
I think her apology does a good job of addressing the core criticism while redirecting back to the actual message. I doubt the redirect will make any waves in the news cycle though.
Pro-Israel policy isn't partisan in the US.
Actually tbh is foreign policy even partisan in the US? I don't think it is at all. Clinton as the Secretary of State was as least as hawkish as a lot of red state Senators I feel
Obama was notable not because he was a Democrat but because he rejected a lot of the cross-party FP commonly held views. And he wasn't exactly notable.
Foreign policy is fairly partisan in the US. It's just partisan within certain parameters. Which is hardly uniquely american or unique to foreign policy.
That's....uh