American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

Just saying, they don't know what war is. easy for them to click a few LIKE on some facebook posts during intermissions. Let's send more money

[Mjmd]

I've stated before that I think a good justification for sending them aid is that A) they are unlikely to give up even if we do and not sending aid would just cause more suffering. They were making Molotov cocktails, the lack of more advanced equipment is unlikely to change their mind about being subjugated by Russia. B). its a good way to hopefully prevent future wars. Both Russia thinking they can get away with more, but also China. Dictators CANNOT be appeased.

I would be THRILLED if Russia pulled out of Ukraine tomorrow. I would have been thrilled if they had pulled out after their push on Kyiv failed. I really wish Russia had never done it and its not like its done them any favors.

[Charr Babies]

I am on subject. I'm showing that land bases are actually FARTHER away than a sub. Not only that but the enemy knows where they are. Sure its part of the triad, but its hardly the most dangerous. Lets say 20 nukes were put in Ukraine. Deos that matter when a sub could have 288 off the coast? No. I'm trying to show its a really stupid justification for war. I'm trying to prove from a technical point of view it doesn't matter. If I said from a technical point of view it didn't matter and then didn't prove it I would be committing a logical fallacy.

Do we have any nukes in the former eastern bloc. NO. NO. NO. So could we have plans? Again, hard to prove non existence. But hopefully we can agree that war shouldn't be declared because something has a 1% of happening? And lets be clear the chance of use is negligible.

Are you saying war is good? Yes I've never been on the front line, but do you disagree with me that war is bad? Other than insulting me I'm not sure what your argument is. This is why insulting people isn't a good form of argument.

Russia has ANNOUNCED that they will move nukes to Belarus. There is NO evidence let alone announcement of nukes going to Ukraine. I was merely pointing out that in a similar situation where its a western country getting nukes closer to it I don't think they should invade either. Obviously I disagree Russia should invade a country on a stupid unlikely hypothetical. I've stated that multiple times. I was merely trying to draw a comparison since you don't seem to want to actually prove that it is justified.

Please try to without insulting me, argue that a hypothetical 20 nukes (I would suspect lower but just the same as many other non Italy countries Europe countries) justifies Russia invading? I've made my arguments. 1) it doesn't technically change anything. 2) its extremely unlikely it would have happened.

Land base military bases are more than nukes. Don't just concentrate on subs with its many limitations

LoL at your fallacy again. it never ends. You keep flinging fallacy here fallacy there like a mad man in a mud wrestling, and yet, if you are so logical, have you ever asked why you have not yet mounted any logical argument to convince anyone?

Land base military bases are more than nukes. Don't just concentrate on subs with its many limitations. I am not biting. 

Instead of spending countless posts trying to pin you down. 

Let me be the bigger man and let you off the hook here

[Mjmd]

So I thought you were just arguing nukes. If you want to argue if a military base matters we can do that. My main argument would be that there is 0 chance of NATO attacking Russia. If they wanted to now would be an excellent time to do so and they aren't. Also, nuclear states don't really do direct wars as you pointed out and as you pointed that out I'm confused why you would at the same time think its a justification.

If you are more worried about 20 nukes than 288 or 5000 please try to prove it. Its up to you to prove that 20 very unlikely to actually happen nukes is somehow dangerous enough to justify invasion. You haven't. My argument is that a low number of land based nukes DOESN'T change the calculus. Its up to you to prove that it does to such a degree to justify invasion. That is how arguments work. One side makes an argument and the other side tries to disprove it. This one has been working opposite because you've never tried to prove your argument and I've had to try to disprove it while you say my arguments don't matter without proving they don't.

[Charr Babies]

Biden says, you sir, Mr. Netanyahu, your actions are over the top
But Biden said... That matters, right?

Netanyahu pulls a tu quoque with 911
Adds a handful more to the death count. (Repeats it a few more time and Americans will believe it as facts)
What would you do, Mr hypocrite?

Well, since all the American all say they will be doing a hell of a lot more. 
Well yes, we did level a couple of countries... on false pretense even
We will send you more financial aids, personnel and hardware. But, don't call it genocide, ok? 
Thanks, we will even put a couple of bouncers at the door for you, Bud.

And so Lapid goes to China to quickly change their stance on China's human rights issues, an expressed Israel’s appreciation for China’s support for the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and said that Israel does not interfere in China’s internal affairs, including those related to Xinjiang. 

[Mjmd]

Biden in a speech told Israel "not to be consumed by rage as we were after 9/11". Do I wish he would come out A LOT more strongly yes. Should we be giving them any aid. NO.

Hatred and anger are strong forces. I do not have the answers to middle east peace.

I do think this is a good case study of social media and alternative news alternating view points. A lot of the younger generation which opposes US policy on Israel are younger (IE doesn't just get news from traditional media).

[greenline]

The shift in generations has been from believing that the Holocaust is the original moral sin when everything is compared to WWII and Hitler, to the young'uns now openly believing that the genocide and ethnic cleansing of jews is a good thing, so long as the perpetrators of such an act are brown enough. The more Islamic refugees any country in particular takes in, the stronger this trend will be - although there are plenty of jews themselves eager to get in on this racket. Either way, whoever wins, the rest of us lose...

[Mjmd]

Most of the social media from younger people seem to be on the line that genocide is genocide. NOT and this is important that "ethnic cleansing of jews is a good thing". And I can't stress that NOT part enough.

I remember 9/11. I remember sitting in my high school lunch room and a kid saying we should bomb the whole of the middle east to glass. I remember being horrified. Hate and anger are strong forces throughout history. We should do better now. We should know better.

[greenline]

They refer to it as decolonization, which historically and currently suggests ethnic cleansing. The jews in Israel are regarded as 'white' colonists, and decolonizing them would mean killing anyone who does not flee. And that young people believe this should not be surprising, because they have been taught that decolonization is a good thing.

Anger and hate are human emotions and they will continue to drive politics. A lot of left wing politics is driven by hate: hatred of 'oppressors', hatred of prejudice, hatred of school shootings. Many things most people would agree are not even bad to hate.

[Mjmd]

Do you have some legitimate polling for categorizing the opinions of a whole group of people? Because I haven't seen anything on "wanting to kills all jews" or similar. I've seen things like "being anti netenyahu / war isn't the same as being anti israel". I've seen "genocide is genocide" as stated. I've seen that many young voters don't like US supporting Israel because of what they are doing. Those opinions are not the same. Shockingly you can be ok with Israel existing and also at the same time not want the Palestinian people to be oppressed.

Agreed, some kinds of hate are ok, but some aren't. Hatred against groups of people generally bad.