politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think...this is more complicated than a clear cut black and white choice. Not killing is clearly the correct response. Thing is how do we get there? Do we attempt to send in troops to police a location half a planet away? You know people will support that while also pointing out other conflicts we should be "dealing with" and pointing casually to situations we've made usually worse by stepping into.
That's not really the point though. The point is the support being given.
I agree that the sales of arms to any institution inflicting harm on another is, at the absolute best, a grey area on a good day. It seems to me though that in a conflict that is powered by ideology, this legitimately makes no real difference. It will happen whether we break off the relationship or not. Because of this, it is best to attempt to utilize that relationship to attempt to diplomatically stop the conflict. The alternatives are send in forces which will increase regional political strain and possibly ignite a larger conflict, or do absolutely, irrefutably nothing.
If there is a fourth decision that leads to a better outcome I am not wise enough to see it. What I do understand is that all relationships require some give in order to have some take. I don't agree with any weapons being sent over, though I do believe they made zero real impact on the result. This was going to happen and I feel attempting to stop it without escalation was the right choice, because it usually is the right choice.
Anyway, chances are the situation is far more complex than we realize. 50/50 on me being wrong, which is fine, opinions can change. Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.
Then we should start doing diplomacy and actually put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the genocide.
Until then we aren’t doing diplomacy we are appeasing a genocide of at this point probably ~50,000 Palestinians.
When Israel kills all Palestinians the problem is diplomatically solved!
This would be funnier if it wasn't unironically what some are advocating.
I'm probably more ignorant than I realize, though I am under the understanding that there has been increasing levels of pressure. Netanyahu just doesn't care.
Its ok to be ignorant, but you have to understand we are talking about this like it is an unpaid loan or some material bullshit.
This is an entire people and their landscape being erased. Every moment of "increasing pressure" that doesn't create material policy change is horrifically extending hell on earth.