this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
234 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24323 readers
2823 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah man we can recognize that, does it have to be in this thread though? This one where he's saying horrible fucking things? Is that not an appropriate time to be mad at him? When he sits there saying that murdering thousands of children isn't a crime is that not the perfect time to rebuke the man? If not now when?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nah. Palestine is a terrorist state.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And Israel is a genocidal terrorist state.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is the way war works. They shouldn’t have started a fight with a much bigger, more powerful neighbor. Force is the ultimate arbiter

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They started a fight? I guess every action by Israel prior to 7th October 2023 can be conveniently ignored, then?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The strong win and make the rules. It’s the way it’s always worked bud

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're saying since the weaker party attacked a stronger one, they deserve the genocide performed to their people that had nothing to do with the attack?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There’s collateral damage in wars. And when the cowards who started the war use civilian buildings as bases, and hide amongst civilians, it isn’t the other sides fault for the collateral damage that incurs.

Also, it isn’t genocide

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's collateral damage, then there's levelling cities, blocking aids to cause famine, bombing and raiding hospitals and lying about the presence of terrorists, shooting at civilians in the middle of the road, bombing ambulances, bombing journalists, bombing aid workers, etc. Just admit at this point that you're just lying to justify a genocide because you hate Palestinians for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I just hate idiots who don't understand how the world works. Might makes right in this world, no matter how much you kick and scream. The winners make the rules. Go protest against Hamas

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Saying might makes right means you are defending genocide as long as the one doing it is the stronger party, got it.

Also, why would anyone protest against Hamas? My country does not support Hamas, so what would protesting against them even do? People protest against Israel because their countries are supporting them while they are indiscriminately killing civilians. Do you not even grasp such a basic concept?

Are you sure I'm the one that has no idea how the world works? Its not the one that can't even deny any of the stuff I mentioned, but still wants to claim that no genocide is occurring?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi. Old soldier here. You're wrong. Go home and think about your life choices. The entire idea of war crimes was created by soldiers. Violating those laws isn't some kind of alpha power move. It's weak and cowardly. If they're so much stronger then they should be able to protect the civilians. They either cannot and are lying, or will not and deserve the violence they receive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey guys, this dudes a soldier so he must be super well educated in international relations!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You saw the "no central authority" line and thought this would be a good idea didn't you? But no. Rules of war have existed for thousands of years. Because even ancient soldiers and their countries realized you still had to live with your neighbors after you fight. Realism does not preclude rules and agreements. It just means countries are going to look after their self interest first. This is what you get for citing Wikipedia on something you go to college for. (I actually did by the way. The GI Bill paid for studies in international politics)

There's also Liberalism, Rationalism, and Constructivism. But for some reason all the edgy kids go straight for Realism. The truth is the world order is made with a mix of these ideas. We have the UN, a liberal institution. The UN cannot act without the Security Council, a realist institution. But no, nobody wants to hear that. It's all got to be that sexy Realism, because then they're free to do whatever they want.

Well guess what? That never worked. The last pure realist died of a stroke in 1953. Even GW Bush called up NATO for Afghanistan and put together a coalition for Iraq. For all his bluster about acting unilaterally he wasn't a pure realist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't have much time to continue this conversation with you (and I'll ignore the attempts at belittling my stance), but I will just add that Liberalism, Idealism, etc are really only relevant when the other side(s) are also abiding by those norms. As soon as one side pursues Realist actions (like Bibi, Hamas, or Putin), then the only response is to match their force.

Also:

realism underscores the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics

realism asserts that the dynamics of the international arena revolve around states actively advancing national interests and prioritizing security

realism argues that states operate in a realm devoid of inherent justice, where ethical norms may not apply

each of the parties choose to protect their own self-interests at the expense of the other participant

This illustrates how a realist state might interact with another state; whether to protect its own resources or risk everything to achieve its goals

Just to try to clarify my reasoning on even bringing this up - I'm not trying to justify individual soldiers' actions in a specific conflict. I'm trying to make it clear that in state vs. state conflicts, what you would typically consider to be norms go out the window as each will prioritize their security and power. Thus, when one that is weaker attacks another that is stronger, you should expect an overwhelming response

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's not true at all. In a Counter Insurgency environment against a group like HAMAS it's even more important not to match them. You kill them by killing their ideas. And you do that by being demonstrably better so they can't recruit anymore.

And with Russia you don't do it either. You want the prisoners for their information and because you can win fights easier if they know they can surrender. That doesn't change just because Russia decided to commit war crimes.

You're still stuck in the pop science idea of Realism being some macho do anything ideology. Even as you quote from the realist facet of the modern theory of using all 4 schools. There's a reason the United States, EU, and China haven't pursued pure realism. Israel isn't going to suddenly make it work. And in many ways they've already lost this war. They've destroyed their international reputation and there will be economic repercussions for them at the very least. At most, they've opened the door to a single state solution just based on their public treatment of Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Funny how someone coming to your home and telling you they own your house now, and might have to shoot your children, and you're only allowed to live now where there is no food or water or employment or safety, will lead to that sometimes.

Hamas is a horrible corrupt criminal terrorist organization, I agree. Killing and raping a bunch of people at a music festival is still a monstrous crime, whatever Israel has been doing, and also it will not help the Palestinians any. But it's not like Hamas wandered into someone else's homeland and started making trouble where there wasn't any before.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meh, the strong win wars and make the rules. Read some history

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

HERE we go

I was waiting for this.

A super obnoxious anti-Palestine user, who also supports Biden and thinks we have to stop Trump from getting elected. I didn't like dig through your profile in detail, but those were the only two categories of comments I saw right off. This is the higher level shilling I was waiting for -- this is gonna be way more effective than "Biden is the worst, I'm not voting" which at this point is just setting yourself up to get yelled at by everybody and solidify the groupthink in the opposite direction than you wanted to.

I think you're being a little cartoonish with it though. Like it's immediately obvious reading this comment that something is very wrong. I think you wanna be a little more subtle instead of just crashing through the gate like "FUCK PALESTINE, YAY BIDEN, AGBLARBLRBRA"

(Account created 14 days ago -- I predict we'll see a bunch more of these, too, maybe with a little more subtle of an approach 🤣)