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.
- 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.
- 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
It's my armchair theory that hardliner Israeli command has made it clear to the US that if they feel they cannot "defend themselves" any more, that they have a nuclear option ready to deploy against Iran.
This is not an excuse for the US stance on Israel. Not an excuse for what Israel is doing. Not an excuse for Iran's actions or support.
but it's my only working mental model for how Israel can act so freely. Even if the US is generally aligned with Israel's goals (anti Hamas, anti Iran), the way they are conducting this offensive is horrific and is sucking the US in their wake. Obviously the US doesn't care about some settlements and farms in Palestine. Obviously the US doesn't "want" to be associated with killing civilians in this tiny strip of land that is "insignificant" to US needs. Is Israel really doing something for the US That it couldn't do another way? If not, then what are they bargaining with?
And to head off some replies, I know, the US has killed lots of civilians. Has had lots of historic issues. Has conducted unjust war. I know. I'm only discussing this particular situation in 2024.
I'm 100% with you. It's easy for us to judge their decision making from the outside, but if I were sitting in a classified meeting and my SoS told me, "if you turn on Israel, Netanyahu's government will nuke Iran", I would do everything I could do not to piss off Bibi's government, because I'd be preventing nuclear war. If they also told me, "if you tell anyone you're thinking about turning on Israel, Iran will nuke them because they already have a weapon", I would do everything I could do not to reveal a hint of reservation about supporting Israel, because I'd be preventing nuclear war. I sincerely think they've been backed into a corner because any alternate course of action risks actual nuclear Armageddon. I think they're less concerned with how criticism of Israel would play politically than they are about how what happens next would play politically. Maybe I'm wrong, but that situation perfectly explains a LOT of the weird posturing.
If it were a binary choice between allowing genocide and nuclear Armageddon, then I would do absolutely nothing to intervene. I would simultaneously explore EVERY diplomatic channel at my disposal to try to come up with a third option, even if it meant tens of thousands of Gazans are going to die in the process. It's sad but true.
Yep agree
I want to highlight, and think you'll agree:
I'm not trying to build some savior, private struggle narrative for the US DoD. They are just acting expediently for their long term goals, and we just aren't privy to them all. And the whole "oh noes oct 7 was a tragedy!" Narrative doesn't hold enough water for this.
Oh yeah the narratives are all performative bullshit. The DoD is absolutely evil, but in the sense that they won't hesitate to use evil means to accomplish what they'd call "good" (i.e. self-interested) ends. Also their list of "good" ends is ludicrously expansive, but I just happen to agree with them in this instance that averting nuclear war is incontrovertibly "good." It's the politicians' job to figure out how to walk out of a classified meeting and sell their decisions to the public, and that requires a lot of contorted pandering when the stakes are so high and the information so secretive and potentially catastrophic. If these weren't two nuclear powers who wanted to erase one another from the surface of the planet, I might be more judgmental of the US government's motives, but whether we like it or not (and thanks to the orange dipshit and his stupid fucking advisors) Iran is likely already a nuclear power. This is absolutely not a 20th century middle east conflict. This is a whole new ballgame that potentially threatens the survival of all of humanity.
Well put
...I should add, all of which makes me reeeeeeaaaallllllly frustrated with the folks who just say "Biden/Harris could stop this but they choose not to." Like, nofuckingshit they could. But they'd be absolute morons if they ignored the potentially humanity-erasing consequences of doing so. This conflict doesn't exist in a fucking vacuum.
/rant
Exactly that. They could katanabomb anyone on the planet if they wanted to...they could gbu-28 Kim jong un in his bunker if they wanted. But that doesn't help anyone.
Lemmy does this thing where people jump the "fix" without thinking about the mechanics. Eyes wide open that the western military command is not a benevolent bunch, but there are layers and layers of bullshit that Lemmy folks don't know, and I don't know either.