If only someone was pushing them to articulate their reasons for defending the war crimes that are objectively happening
You understand it’s not a good idea to do that for some of the reasons right? What reasons might those be? Can you think of any?
Not doing so is doing nothing to address the suspicion that they might be allowing them to happen because they have imperial interests in the region
“Address the suspicion”? To have a democratic western-friendly foothold in the heart of the oil countries? You need to hear that reason that is so public it’s a cliche? What other ‘imperial interests’ are there? Exploiting labor or something? Setting up cotton plantations in Israel? I’m not suspecting those, but hey surprise me.
It’s only complicated if you think neocolonialism is a valid means to an imperialist end. If you reject those outright it gets pretty simple
I think you know you’re reaching with this one but ok. Let’s use “1. The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation’s resources.” unless you want to argue some finer nuance with ‘neocolonialism’. Why do you think Israel is ‘less developed’? What resources is the US exploiting that isn’t the ‘democratic foothold in the middle east’?
An “imperialist end” huh boy that does sound bad, what end would that be? Preventing eternal war between eternally sworn enemies in a gas station the rest of the world uses? Probably not what you were going for - yours probably has the word genocide in it I bet.
So if it’s so simple - you write the check. What’s your simple solution? Lemme save you the time complaining about it; you’ll say cut off all aid to Israel, I’ll point out Bibi has specifically promised that won’t stop him and then I’ll point out that russia would love to buy some more Israel and you’ll either love that idea or pretend it doesn’t matter or - hey maybe you have the answer, you’re the super genius person the world has been waiting for to solve this problem. But I doubt it.
And as far as some “Fake nuance to arguments”, I’m not saying that’s not a thing, I’m saying prove it. Gimme the simple version you’ve got all printed up on colorful paper. What is it? Is it genius? Is it feasible? Is it even coherent?
What other ‘imperial interests’ are there? Exploiting labor or something? Setting up cotton plantations in Israel? I’m not suspecting those, but hey surprise me.
Idk, you kind of already nailed it with the oil. Exploiting the natural resources of sovereign nations by regional military dominance is definitionally imperialist.
I think you know you’re reaching with this one but ok. Let’s use “1. The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation’s resources.” unless you want to argue some finer nuance with ‘neocolonialism’. Why do you think Israel is ‘less developed’? What resources is the US exploiting that isn’t the ‘democratic foothold in the middle east’?
Lmao, Palestine is the less developed nation, and Isreal is the colony. I didn’t think that one needed to be explained. The resource is oil and trade routes, the foothold is the control over them.
Preventing eternal war between eternally sworn enemies in a gas station the rest of the world uses?
Even at my most angry, I don’t think i’ve ever had this much contempt for another nation/people/continent. That is the wildest show of arogance I have so far seen on lemmy. But if you think the US has been an actor that is keeping the peace and not fomenting conflict in the middle east, then holy fuck I don’t know what I could possibly tell you to convince you otherwise. I mean for fucks sake, the last three decades of american foreign activity has been primarily defined by active military conflict there. Go ahead and convince me those were peacekeeping missions.
So if it’s so simple - you write the check. What’s your simple solution?
Get the fuck out of the middle east and let the people there decide what they want to do with the natural resources. It would be hard to imagine that whatever conflict that erupts there in the vacuum could possibly be worse than the millions of people the US and their partners have killed there over the last three decades.
Gimme the simple version you’ve got all printed up on colorful paper. What is it? Is it genius? Is it feasible? Is it even coherent?
If your only ideological concern is freedom and democracy, then there are no interests the US has in the middle east that come close to meeting them. It’s as easy as “i oppose colonial and imperialist activities no matter what form they take”.
If only someone was pushing them to articulate their reasons for defending the war crimes that are objectively happening
Not doing so is doing nothing to address the suspicion that they might be allowing them to happen because they have imperial interests in the region
It’s only complicated if you think neocolonialism is a valid means to an imperialist end. If you reject those outright it gets pretty simple
Oooh, I have this one, I have this one, citations needed just did an episode on this.
Oh my god I’ve only read the title so far and I already fucking love it
You understand it’s not a good idea to do that for some of the reasons right? What reasons might those be? Can you think of any?
“Address the suspicion”? To have a democratic western-friendly foothold in the heart of the oil countries? You need to hear that reason that is so public it’s a cliche? What other ‘imperial interests’ are there? Exploiting labor or something? Setting up cotton plantations in Israel? I’m not suspecting those, but hey surprise me.
I think you know you’re reaching with this one but ok. Let’s use “1. The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation’s resources.” unless you want to argue some finer nuance with ‘neocolonialism’. Why do you think Israel is ‘less developed’? What resources is the US exploiting that isn’t the ‘democratic foothold in the middle east’?
An “imperialist end” huh boy that does sound bad, what end would that be? Preventing eternal war between eternally sworn enemies in a gas station the rest of the world uses? Probably not what you were going for - yours probably has the word genocide in it I bet.
So if it’s so simple - you write the check. What’s your simple solution? Lemme save you the time complaining about it; you’ll say cut off all aid to Israel, I’ll point out Bibi has specifically promised that won’t stop him and then I’ll point out that russia would love to buy some more Israel and you’ll either love that idea or pretend it doesn’t matter or - hey maybe you have the answer, you’re the super genius person the world has been waiting for to solve this problem. But I doubt it.
And as far as some “Fake nuance to arguments”, I’m not saying that’s not a thing, I’m saying prove it. Gimme the simple version you’ve got all printed up on colorful paper. What is it? Is it genius? Is it feasible? Is it even coherent?
Idk, you kind of already nailed it with the oil. Exploiting the natural resources of sovereign nations by regional military dominance is definitionally imperialist.
Lmao, Palestine is the less developed nation, and Isreal is the colony. I didn’t think that one needed to be explained. The resource is oil and trade routes, the foothold is the control over them.
Even at my most angry, I don’t think i’ve ever had this much contempt for another nation/people/continent. That is the wildest show of arogance I have so far seen on lemmy. But if you think the US has been an actor that is keeping the peace and not fomenting conflict in the middle east, then holy fuck I don’t know what I could possibly tell you to convince you otherwise. I mean for fucks sake, the last three decades of american foreign activity has been primarily defined by active military conflict there. Go ahead and convince me those were peacekeeping missions.
Get the fuck out of the middle east and let the people there decide what they want to do with the natural resources. It would be hard to imagine that whatever conflict that erupts there in the vacuum could possibly be worse than the millions of people the US and their partners have killed there over the last three decades.
If your only ideological concern is freedom and democracy, then there are no interests the US has in the middle east that come close to meeting them. It’s as easy as “i oppose colonial and imperialist activities no matter what form they take”.