The White House has called on Congress to approve aid to Israel and Ukraine, but Republicans oppose any measure that excludes provisions to address security on the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Bush government response after 9/11 increased radicalization, strengthened Al Qaeda, and decreased support for the US. It put us in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.
The Netanyahu government response after 10/7 increased radicalization, strengthened Hamas, and decreased support for Israel. It put them in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.
Maybe you’re correct that some action, other than strict defense, would be best, but that’s not on the table, here. In this context, the choice is between further funding the worst choice, or not doing that. What makes Democrats look bad is how many of them support further funding the worst case.
You’re not considering the act of no retaliation causing the terrorists to keep trying large attacks. Hamas isn’t acting alone, just like Bin Laden wasn’t acting alone. They have backers with deep pockets that can’t be dealt with directly for complex political reasons. I’m not advocating for one way or another, I’m acknowledging it’s incredibly complicated and there’s no good solution to it.
How do you conclude that I’m not considering that? Escalation doesn’t reduce that risk.
Bernie might have the right idea in a ideal world, but in reality it’s not a great take and it makes other Democrats look bad that are having to make the difficult decisions which again spreads apathy.
It’s hard for me to read this as “not advocating for one way or another”, given that what Bernie is doing is saying to step back from the unquestioning full-throttle support of the Netanyahu government. If you think that’s a bad take, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are advocating for that full support of what they’re doing.
To be fair, a lot of the other things you’ve said indicate otherwise, so I guess I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
The Bush government response after 9/11 increased radicalization, strengthened Al Qaeda, and decreased support for the US. It put us in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.
The Netanyahu government response after 10/7 increased radicalization, strengthened Hamas, and decreased support for Israel. It put them in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.
Maybe you’re correct that some action, other than strict defense, would be best, but that’s not on the table, here. In this context, the choice is between further funding the worst choice, or not doing that. What makes Democrats look bad is how many of them support further funding the worst case.
You’re not considering the act of no retaliation causing the terrorists to keep trying large attacks. Hamas isn’t acting alone, just like Bin Laden wasn’t acting alone. They have backers with deep pockets that can’t be dealt with directly for complex political reasons. I’m not advocating for one way or another, I’m acknowledging it’s incredibly complicated and there’s no good solution to it.
How do you conclude that I’m not considering that? Escalation doesn’t reduce that risk.
It’s hard for me to read this as “not advocating for one way or another”, given that what Bernie is doing is saying to step back from the unquestioning full-throttle support of the Netanyahu government. If you think that’s a bad take, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are advocating for that full support of what they’re doing.
To be fair, a lot of the other things you’ve said indicate otherwise, so I guess I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.