BraveSirZaphod

Jumping to “All Israelis deserve to die” is not helping you the way you think it is, but by all means, keep digging if you want.

So, yes, it’s “I think more civilian deaths would be good”.

I think I’ll just let that speak for itself. Cheers.

Are you suggesting that hundreds of dead Israeli citizens would be a better state of affairs?

If your position is that we should not support military action that blatantly violates standard rules of engagement, that would apply to the Iranian military just as much as it applies to the IDF. There’s no contradiction in criticizing IDF action in Gaza for not trying to minimize civilian casualties while also working to minimize civilian casualties in Israel as a result of Iranian action.

Removed by mod

If you’re under the impression that Israelis universally support Netanyahu, I have a feeling you’ve never actually talked to any.

He’d be gone by lunchtime.

Why?

There’s this narrative that Israel is completely dependent on US aid and would be powerless without it, but I don’t think that’s obviously true. What military is going to meaningfully threaten them? Jordan has no interest in another giant wave of Palestinian migrants (given that the last one led to a coup attempt), nor does it have a significant military. Lebanon hardly has a genuine government. Syria is a mess. Egypt does have some legitimate power, but also has no interest in a massive war right next to them.

The only regional power capable of meaningfully threatening Israel is Iran, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni coalition do not want massive expansion of Iranian influence.

Not to mention, Israel has already defeated all of its neighbors, simultaneously, twice. I’m fairly confident that the only thing that would actually happen if the US stopped sending aid is a bit of a dent in the Israeli economy.

Scratch a tankie and a toddler bleeds, or whatever the saying is.

My apologies, especially since you brought up WMDs in Iraq in just the best of faith.

Best of luck in your political ventures. The rhetorical bravery you’ve shown here has just been incredibly inspiring.

This conversation is specifically about the Uyghur genocide conspiracy theory.

Weird, I thought it was about Iraq!

The fact that the Iraqi invasion was deeply controversial at the time, and this controversy was able to be loudly expressed, stands in very stark contrast to how controversial topics in China’s recent history can be discussed. This is the main point I’m trying to make. I see you follow the lead of the Chinese government by simply refusing to discuss it, and I understand that talking about things that challenge your world view can be uncomfortable, so I’ll do you a favor by allowing this conversation to end.

I would just point out, though, that if I had responded to your initial comment about WMDs in Iraq with “Nope, not doing it,” you’d probably call me a coward or something.

I mean, yes, Bush lied to the American public. This is not particularly controversial.

And given that the original point was the difference between the ability and willingness of liberals to criticize our own governments relative to tankies, Tiananmen is a perfectly relevant topic, though I’m hardly surprised that you’d clearly like to avoid it. And if randomly bringing up supposedly unrelated topics is something to avoid, might I ask why you brought up WMDs in Iraq in a thread about the Uyghers in the first place?

The Iraq War inspired mass protests immediately that set records in several American cities, but sure.

You are correct though that the narrative has shifted with time. So I take it that this has also happened in China, such that someone could organize a protest on the Tiananmen anniversary, right?

The difference between your average liberal and a tankie is that liberals will openly say that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that the invasion was a mistake.

Find a tankie that would ever actually criticize the CCP the same way.

China will not seek to “own” outer space

Let’s see China get out of other nations’ ocean space first and then we can talk about outer space.

Removed by mod

For what it’s worth, I don’t really disagree.

Basically, and that in the modern era where attacks can happen very quickly and with zero warning from non-state actors (as opposed to having to march an army across fields for days), the President needs to be able to react very quickly.

Given the current state of Congress, with a shutdown looming, no real plan, and apparently now some rumblings of a plan to oust the Speaker yet again, I can kinda understand the logic.

More cynically, it isolates Congress members from any political accountability.

The numerous times that he has proceeded to not do something after the SCOTUS tells him that it’s unconstitutional.

Rep Tlaib is welcome to file a lawsuit if she thinks the AUMF in unconstitutional. It would be a bit strange though if it survived 23 years of use, including actions in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and then a response to direct attacks on US Navy ships winds up being what sinks it.

But again, these representatives can sue if they’re so confident.

Yeah, there’s absolutely a valid question of whether the AUMF is a good idea or not, but the fact of the matter is that it did pass, it is in force, and therefore essentially any military action - especially in response to direct attacks on American military ships - is unquestionably legal.

If Congress would like to complain about the President conducting war without its authority, they should perhaps revoke the essentially unlimited authority to conduct war that it gave him.

Instead of respecting the international money market exchange rates for USD to the Peso

You’re completely ignoring the black market Peso : USD conversion rate, which is even lower than what Millei has shifted things to at about 1000 pesos per dollar. The aim is to try to get the rate to actually reflect reality.