230
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
230 points (100.0% liked)
News
23311 readers
4102 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It makes sense. He's actually been competent, which not many (certainly not I) quite expected, but the media hasn't reported a lot of his successes, which have been unusually deployed and quite complex to begin with. People don't understand it. Maybe they'll vote for him anyway, but it's not assured, somehow even with Trump on the other side again.
e.g.how he blocked the railway strike at Christmas to save "the economy" first and foremost at the workers expense, but then kept working afterwards to help get most if not all of their demands met (I'm not sure if they got any sick leave though). Right or wrong, in the past that would have been hailed as a "huge success", but instead we barely heard about it.
Likewise with Gaza he has tried to toe the line - we technically have obligations to fulfill there, but does genocide change that, and if so what is the process by which to do that, and is he engaging in that, or doesn't Israel have a veto anyway, so what else is he doing that we might want done?
We have depended upon our media so much, to tell us not just what happened but what it means and how to feel about it all. So with it being bought out now by billionaires... it is like our fourth branch of government has become as unreliable as Congress and the Supreme Court.
how can anyone that age be competent
not to be mean but the mind does age it does not magically stop because your name is Biden he has reached that age
he told those rail workers they could not strike or they would lose retirement and shit
he threatened them with their livelihoods fuck that old crony he promised to raise the minimum wage and fight for us workers
he hasn't quite the opposite
Silent Genocide Joe and Prosecutor Kamala Harris are not America's saviors neither is Trump
just older people refusing to let a younger generation take the reins while cashing checks from the corporations same as Trump and making sure the younger people are disenfranchised enough to not to take a stand
fucking sick either candidate get any support with the suffering and misery they have wrought
I can't disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
I do want to know what exactly Biden has genocided. The two groups in this world who are driving genocides are Putin's and Netanyahu's regimes. Biden has no control over them, and the only group that could enact a foreign policy to do anything here in the US is Congress. So if anyone is complicit in that, it's our "Currently Genocidal by Inaction Congress."
I get it though, doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.
[Edit: a poster below pointed out that my joke was bad and I should feel bad. ]
Camilla was a poor choice at vp no matter how you swing it given the current progressive opinion on police.
He could stop sending a new shipment of the very weapons used to commit genocide with every day and a half.
It might not stop it immediately, but it would at least make it more difficult for Netanyahu's fascist apartheid regime to keep blowing the shit out of innocent civilians if they have to look elsewhere for the bombs to do so with.
Plus, there's hardly any way to be more clearly an accomplice to war crimes than insisting on sending weapons to be used to commit war crimes regardless of congressional approval.
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
First of all, no he isn't. In fact, it's illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there's not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they've already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there's literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that's not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.
His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.
There's no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He's trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it's best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway... Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I'll read your next message bit I probably won't have time to reply.
This is getting circular and I have better things to do with my day. Let's just agree to disagree.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You've made some really good points. I think he's made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
I dunno about that - Democrats are not "the same" as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still...), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so... instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there's a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
I don't find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven't already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel's government. Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let's not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.
You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I've seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.
Summary of our obligations from the state department https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we're have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it's logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden "going around Congress". This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I've never looked this deeply into this before so I'm learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep...)
That might work if it weren’t for the fact that Biden bypassed congress twice to sell Israel weapons.
Until he completely stops sending them weapons and vetoing UN resolutions then he is just as guilty as the people dropping the bombs
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
Can you show me the treaty and what it specifies?
It's the NATO agreement. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
Article 5 is the one that got invoked by the Hamas attack
As stated in another thread, at this point Biden has done enough to cover against any legal retaliation however, and 100% command a withdrawal of US support as Israel has actually been using the supplies to commit war crimes
Israel is not a member of nato, and article 5 only applies in Europe and North America.
You might want to reread that
Ah you are correct. They are a non-nato ally as they are out of geographical scope.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/#:~:text=Israel%20has%20been%20designated%20as,relationship%20with%20the%20United%20States.
This world be applicable though.
From what I can tell, that just makes it easier to sell them weapons, not necessary. Feel free to correct me though
That's only a subsection of our obligations. Two paragraphs up are what I was actually talking about. We have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them which essentially boils down to an attack on me must me treated as an attack on you.
Ok. I see multiple treaties there.
So as the person making the claim that we have to send them weapons, I am going to ask you to find exactly where it says we must help them.
You made the claim, you should be able to post why instead of just a link to every treaty we have going right now.
The ways to remedy a bilateral defense agreement depending on the actual agreement (I'm having trouble finding any of the us-isreal ones... So I'm just making assumptions here) usually boil down to supplying military aid or providing military defense.
Essentially the us must deploy supplies or a defense force. I'll keep digging for the actual text of one of these treaties but it might take a bit because the US state departments site is actually just really badly organized.
There's a whale of a lot of wisdom and experience younger, less experienced folks can learn from those "dinosaurs".
Sure, but there is also a lot of updated knowledge those dinosaurs could lean from the "less experienced" folks.
Especially when it comes from science, sociology, technology, and plenty more.
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Current president of Israel
First of all, his name is Herzog. Secondly, it isn't his regime because he is only nominally in charge due to the president of Israel having limited powers.
Are you under the impression that Israel's president is like the U.S. president?
Israel has a parliamentary system. The prime minister has supreme executive power. The prime minister of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu.
That's actually sorta that joke, the US president is roughly as capable of commiting genocide as the president of Israel.
As for misspelling his name... Thanks Google? I'll fix it.
Which the joke was probably not well delivered as it would probably have flown over that other guys head anyway...
Then it's not a good joke since the U.S. president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, meaning that a U.S. president could absolutely commit genocide. And has done so many times with indigenous Americans.
The last one also caused a huge number of "excess deaths" as well...
Only with clearance from Congress though. I actually did not realize that Israel's president did not serve as cic.
Absolutely not true. Only for prolonged conflicts... which congress will almost definitely approve of by the time that happens because the military will already be too embedded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
And even the limits on the War Powers Resolution have only been in place since 1973.
I see, so essentially they would state that it was in defense of the United States because it is was onshore and is there's nothing Congress could do about it.
That's actually really horrifying if someone like trump takes the presidency given his current threats...