I think by “support” they mean “send billions of dollars in US military hardware, which both funds the military-industrial complex and furthers wars and conflicts on the other side of the world”. Not everyone thinks that is a good idea.
- 5 Posts
- 359 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 17th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Could you share any specific examples? I haven’t seen or read any instances of him being that off the mark.
All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn’t categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn’t mean there is categorically no link – it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
-
Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.
-
Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel’s neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.
-
The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel’s use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel’s behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being “in compliance with international humanitarian law” when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.
-
4·3 months agoOh, I agree. I think the last six months have really disabused me of the notion that working to effect meaningful change within the US system as it currently stands is even remotely possible.
Yeah, fair play. I’ve been something of an apologist for AOC for some time, but her full transformation to mainstream Democrat is disappointing.
21·3 months agoA translation of the top caption says
The last Iron Swords survey was conducted between the dates 07-11.8.24 led by the data collection and analysis desk at the Institute for National Security Studies. The fieldwork was carried out by the “iPanel” Institute, during which 772 men and women were interviewed on the Internet and by telephone in the Hebrew language and 200 in the Arabic language, which constitute a representative sample of the adult Israeli population in Israel aged 18 and over. The maximum sampling error for the entire sample is 3.5% ± at a 95% confidence level.
He won’t need to nix anything - Hamas will not agree to a deal that does not actually hold Israel to a lasting ceasefire:
“After being briefed by the mediators about what happened in the last round of talks in Doha, we once again came to the conclusion that Netanyahu is still putting obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement, and is setting new conditions and demands with the aim of undermining the mediators’ efforts and prolonging the war,” Hamas said.
More specifically, Hamas objects to the fact that the proposal doesn’t include a permanent ceasefire or comprehensive Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
All this talk of a ceasefire deal is a PR stunt that allows the US to pretend like it’s trying to make progress while still funneling weapons to Israel.
Based on what evidence? That claim was just an attempt to smear her campaign on social media.
Yes, God forbid that people vote for parties that actually represent their values rather than always picking the lesser of two evils
More bullshit from the DNC. Luckily the judge appears to have dismissed the complaint, which means the Greens are still on the ballot in Wisconsin.
The DNC has subsequently filed a lawsuit in response. The author of the complaint, David Strange, says the Greens should not be on the ballot because
the Green Party can’t nominate presidential electors in Wisconsin because no one in the party is a state officer, defined as legislators, judges and others. Without any presidential electors, the party can’t have a presidential candidate on the ballot
All this pretty rich coming from the party that is allegedly out to “save democracy”.
deleted by creator
The post title seems to be satirizing a common argument between factions on the left / centre-left. It can generally apply to various issues (say, universal health care or police reform) but US support for Israel is the current point of contention.
One side is advocating just to make sure Kamala gets the presidency and Trump is defeated, after which point (they say) she can be pressured to ‘move left’ on the subject of Israel, which would mean to enforce an arms embargo on Netanyahu in order to put a halt to the killing in Gaza.
The other side (which is the position being advocated by this meme) are saying no, it doesn’t work like that with Democrats – they profess to be in favor of change and progressive values but once in power, they’ll be under the boot of big money donors and lobbyists in Washington. If you want to pressure on Kamala on Israel (they say) the time to do it is now, while she’s desperate to get elected.
Shame you’re being downvoted, but you’re right. While Maduro’s regime is certainly autocratic and corrupt, the US has been interfering in Venezuela for decades in order to gain access to its oil reserves (the largest in the world).
This article in The Intercept is a good overview of the history, which includes two failed coup attempts.
Any claims that this latest ploy is being carried out for the sake of “democracy” should be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
Not just in the 80s - US government actors and proxies have tried to overthrow the government in Venezuela twice since then - in 2002 and in 2020.
Then there’s also the crippling effects that US economic sanctions have had on several countries in South and Central America, which has led to the deaths of thousands and many refugees fleeing those countries. The surge in the number of people trying to cross the US-Mexico border is in no small part driven by the US’ own policies on Latin America.
Several genocide scholars seem to be convinced on the matter, though:
Designating something as a genocide is not a matter of opinion – it’s a legal definition.
Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.