cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
Genuinely, who in the world has the capacity to give the level of aid the US gives to Israel. You say they would go to someone and don’t want to predict who it would be, then give a list. What countries would be able and remotely willing to even a 10th of what the US gives to Israel?
I don’t get to make that assumption. The point you’re missing here is that it’s COMPLICATED. I gave a simple example of what might stall the “simple” decision to do as the leftists think would be so easy. (Bad auto-correct decision here, hope it fixed before read)
They’ve come up with zero ideas or concepts of how it can be done, but my feet are held to the fire to illustrate why it’s complicated?
That’s where we are now.
Armchair geopolitical edgelords on the internet get to claim simplicity in ending trade policies, whereas someone who suggest it isn’t that easy is held to the task to explain it to people that are just going to brush it off with ad hominem attacks nay say.
I’m done dude. I said what I felt needed be said. I’m not here to change kids as that’s fucking impossible. I knew this before I started and did it anyway.
You cannot reason with a leftist.
I’m just going to point and laugh from now on like everyone else does.
The point is you can say “it’s complicated” about anything in the real world, yet things still happen. So the question, I’m still asking:
If the group that is currently giving all the of weapons used stopped, where else could their weapons come from? What are some possibilities that would be even remotely close? And if at the end of all the considerations it’s a drastic reduction in how much violence they can do, or their ability to expand their violence in the region, isn’t that still better?
So because someone doesn’t have all the answers to a hypothetical question, it’s full steam ahead with whatever the hive mind thinks should happen despite their ignorance on the topic?
I’m on the side with the leading experts that suggest that it’s not an easy thing to do, and it isn’t simplified just because it’s the right thing to do. You’re on the side of fellow internet randoms that disagree with the experts.
I am not asking for all the answers, I am asking where could they get a fraction of the support they currently have?
I will grant you some things are complicated. “How do we get enough bombs to commit genocide” is a complicated question, and Israel currently has a single and seemingly endless answer in the US. So the one question I continue to have is where else would they go to replace what the US does for them? If it would make it more difficult and reduce the ability to commit a genocide, isn’t that better?
I find it interesting that you were so confident before saying ‘they would just go to China or Russia’, but instantly fall to nebulous “negotiations would ensue” and cries of the complicated nature when getting any push back.
The lone question you still seem so adverse to considering: If they didn’t get billions in bombs from the US, how else could Israel do this? Because you seem to believe with such certainty they could.
I am still confident that they would go to china and/or Russia. I’m just not foolish enough to base an entire argument on something that I hold a strong opinion on. It was an EXAMPLE of what makes it complicated.
Israel is hell-bent on this. If the US backs out, someone else will fill in that gap. This is experts saying this. This is THEIR concern. I just happen to agree with it. Unless you’re part of an administration that works in geopolitics and international diplomacy, back off the armchair simplification of it all.
And before you think to call me out for refusing to answer- know that I have explained myself time after time ALL FUCKING MORNING to everyone that has challenged my statements.
Yet… Not a single one of you have explained a plan that illustrates how easy it is to just break the agreement. And the few that tried- failed to issue any statement on how to deal with the repercussions of breaking those agreements.
This is how it is here. Put people on the defensive, so you never have to own your own points. Because when challenged to explain their side with logic, the left has nothing.
Now I’m done with this discussion. I’ve been on the ropes the entire time, and even after explanation after explanation- you’re all still coming at me to define my stance.
I have. Thoroughly.
Who is “this expert?”
The idea that China and Russia have such a great interest in the state of Israel that the would collectively give even half of what the US gives is utterly insane. You’re being challenged because what your saying is nonsense. Again, even if they could cobble together enough support to find trade deals would pale in to what the US gives for free. The idea that the commitments the US has to Israel are so ironclad that we have to keep sending more bombs to a state committing genocide, shows how absurd your view is.
It’s clear you have some significant cognitive dissidence over the reality of what the US is doing to aid an active genocide by a rogue state that committing acts of terror and escalating tensions in an unstable region. With that you’ve picked some number of experts that support your delusion, and harp on how impossible it would be to stop, on how they would find some other way. There is nothing that would be comparable to what the US gives to Israel, and the US has no obligation to give weapons to those committing war crimes. Stop lying to yourself and admit that this blood is on America’s hands.
So, I pretty clearly said:
“I’m done with this discussion.”
Now… for my own edification, could you point to what part of that you’re having difficulty understanding? I’d like to know for future reference how to be more clear to people that wish to rewrite my statements and simultaneously think I won’t notice
It’s insulting.
I suppose my difficulty is in understanding why you’re still replying and/or not blocking me. You have no obligation to reply, I am not obliged to ignore yours because you’ve said you’re done. I still have yet to have a meaningful answer from you, so I continue to ask; if not freely given by America, how would Israel get hundreds of billions of dollars in bombs?