1387
If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice… (europe.pub)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
578 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 days ago* (7 children)

Or...

Biden was a strong supporter of the original Iran nuclear deal that Trump eventually withdrew from. Biden tried to negotiate back into the deal while president but was not able to during first term. All signs point to more negotiations during a possible biden second term(iranian ppl beginning to distrust their gov), not a 180 turn to invasion...which no one wanted(of either party) and would never have happened under Biden.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

    Ok, I have Biden's go-to guy when it comes to diplomacy in west asia saying otherwise. I don't see anything that supports this other than indications (but no commitments) all of which are prior to operation al-aqsa flood.

    Edit: sorry the first response was too confrontational, the other commenter had raised my hackles with their aggressive response

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (5 children)

    Don't forget republicans have started every war for generations(at least 60yrs). All of the sudden modern dems decide to start a war because of one guy's opinion? It would have been the most unpopular move by a democrat since.. who knows when. Far more likely is a coalition of many, now former, strong allies pressuring Iran but without military intervention.

    Every government runs war simulations about everything so that is also no indication at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    Libya. Yugoslavia. Syria.

    But also, you are proving the both sides problem. Eisenhower sent a few hundred soldiers to Vietnam. It was the Democrats that escalated and went hog wild and it was the Republicans that signed the peace accords. Somalia followed the same patterns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (3 children)

    I was obviously including vietnam for Dems when I said 60 years. So in generations they have all been started by republicans. As much as you would like, none of the ones you mentioned were wars. Interventions yes, and republicans have been involved in many as well. But wars? Only the war mongering gop. With a shiny new Iran war to get the gop's heart pumping again.

    Edit: You're .ml which are gop war minimizers now it seems. So strange.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    So you're not using the legal definition of wars, and you're not using the coloquial definition of wars. You're using an idiosyncratic definition of war that proves your point. Well done. Someone should capture that technique. It's gold. Defining terms to match your objectives. Why didn't I think of that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    Add up the wars of the last 40 years in money spent and lives lost. Your favorite Gop are the undisputed champions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago

    So now it's 40 years, and not 60? Pretty explicit. The last party realignment was 1968, by the way. Which is why you're previous pick of 60 was so difficult to defend. I would expect you to know that, because you're such an informed voter, but I guess I should never underestimate the ignorance of my fellow Americans.

    Regardless, in PR it's important that one plays their role. The Democrats need the Republicans to start the wars in order to maintain their grip on the anti-war vote. The Ds are obviously not anti-war, as evidenced by the fact that they don't ever reduce the military budget and they never hold Republicans accountable for breaking the law to launch wars. The Democrat stance on war is "well, we have to finish what our opponents started!" That includes genocide against Palestinians as much as it includes launching net new campaigns that were planned by Republican administrations, like Libya.

    But we can also look at non-war deaths too. Economic sanctions from the US have killed way more than wars have. The research published by the Lancet showed an average of 800K dead per year for the last 50 years. Bi-partisan consensus in those sanctions, by the way. Way more devastating than wars. And sanctions kill children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the sick way more than war does.

    And before you ask, the solution is ending the USA entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent