this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
273 points (92.5% liked)

politics

19094 readers
3575 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"It's almost a cruel joke on the electorate that the longest presidential election potentially ever might also be the one that they're least excited about," said one Democratic pollster, speaking anonymously to candidly discuss the race.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Diplomatic action would include stuff like not vetoing UN censure resolutions or reducing embassy staff or issuing specific public criticism.

Remember the French government officially telling the GWB administration that we should not invade Iraq, that it would be a disaster, and that they would not support us if we did? That's what diplomatic action trying to talk down a long- term ally bent on bloody reprisals after a terrorist attack looks like. It has actual costs, it has actual stakes.

Saying "hey, you're making me look bad here!" while continuing to ship arms and provide military support is far weaker than I'd prefer.

I think it's both a moral and strategic failing.

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

No, that is a misconception brought on by a poor understanding of aid for Israel and Palestine.

The EU was laboring under the same misconception you are, that if you give a country complete military control over a region, they will still act in everyone's best interest rather than their own.

That's why different EU leaders have been saying " hey, we might want to take back control of some of the regions of the world, rather than be completely reliant on US policy."

Because of course immediately following a major terrorist attack, the u.s is going to continue to back a 70-year mutual defense Ally who is extremely active in furthering US interest stability in the region.

Also that Iraq war metaphor you used to demonstrate diplomatic action? Exactly what Biden is doing right now, he has told netanyahu that he won't support an extended war and that he focusing on a two-state solution. Exactly the same thing.

Duplomatic de-escalation is not a strategic failing.

Biden isn't telling netanyahu that he's making him look bad, Biden is telling netanyahu that he won't support and extended war on Palestine and that he's focusing on a two-state solution, which no other president has done.

He's directly contradicting one of the oldest active us allies, I would agree based on public outcry and based on his compassionate civil policies and practical political realities, presumably on moral grounds as well.

What happens if Biden immediately abandons an ally of 70 years?

Of course his reactions are weaker than you prefer, he is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military globally, stationed across more than 100 countries in, and it's a single issue among literally hundreds he is directly engaging with.

Your perspective, understanding and comprehension of these situations and that of the president of the United States probably don't exactly match.