Wrench @ Wrench @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,310

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not a WW2 buff, but I painted my understanding of the USA's pre-D day readiness and why we didn't jump in directly until forced.

If that's inaccurate, I'm interested in hearing a counter argument.

So if your interpretation of his words are correct, it seems like it's counter to what historians believe WRT to US's readiness to mobilize our forces at the time. At least as I understand it.

So either I understand this history here in correctly (very possible), or Lindsay is talking out his ass in a surprisingly specific way (also very possible), or he's dog whistling for Nazis in that the US should have stayed out of it.

Given the rewriting of Nazi history that the GOP has been practicing for years, I'm going with dog whistling.

Edit - Just wanted to address the NATO point. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that. No one but Russian propagandists even claim that Russia attacked because of the NATO application.

Well, I explained my reasoning in great detail. Do you disagree with any specific point?

I make a habit of downvoting most Newsweek and Salon articles. They are opinion drivel. Just give me the facts, and I'll draw my own conclusion.

Right. Like, by what he appears to be suggesting, we should have actively joined the war in Europe earlier, instead of just supplying aid and intel to the Allies for so long before committing troops. Like somehow squash Hitler before he got very far.

So it seems like he's advocating for us going to war with Russia immediately.

But in reality, he's a Putin bitch boy, so that's obviously not what he's suggesting.

Edit - Re-reading, I can't come to any other conclusion than he thinks we shouldn't have joined the fight at all. But we joined only when forced by Pearl Harbor, which was a result of our aid to the Allies. And IIRC, the US wasn't really ready to mobilize our military for a campaign in Europe for we did anyway, which is why we were sending aid in the meantime.

So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that he thinks the US should have stayed neutral. That it was out participation that was unnecessary. Particularly when he says we shouldn't be sending Ukraine aid.

Well, he did love to use the hard N before this all while on set of the Apprentice, so I wouldn't put him past making the connection on his own and steering it there.

Am I wrong? If Biden cured ass cancer tomorrow and made the cure free for all Americans, would you realistically change your mind?

Yes, except these women were denied the responsibility because they are women in an Islamic controlled society. But the community was convinced to allow it.

Nothing is going to win approval from you. You have already made your decision.

The tendency to make Perfect the enemy of Good.

It's a tired theme here on Lemmy, particularly WRT Gaza, and particularly in criticism of Biden's policy towards Isreal.

And your proof that using that leverage will achieve the desired result in a 2 month time frame is...?

There was a branch in this thread where someone else made the accusation. But fine, I retract the statement. It wasn't your words, so no point bringing it up.

I find the request for impossible evidence to be absurd. Since the US did not take the measures you proposed 2 months ago, there is no evidence to present for either of our sides.

I point to Netanyahu's recent and past decisions and complete unwillingness to make concessions, as well as how this conflict has been beneficial to his standing.

But obviously, we can't know for sure what would have happened. But Isreal has never been known to be easily forced, or even compromise to anything not vastly in their favor.

Why “most likely?” Based on what evidence?

See: the entire history of Isreal, and the middle east as a whole.

And if you feel that you need to aid another nation to continue slaughtering children to save your own, maybe you don’t have much worth saving.

Geo-politics are complicated, and more complicated when your own country is currently fighting a fascist movement.

You dismiss the very notion that all but declaring war on Isreal could possibly have negative effects on the Dems political standing. And let's not mince words. Declaring no fly zones, DMZs and enacting sanctions, as you literally explicitly suggested, is one step away from declaring war.

And yet I've been accused of arguing in bad faith. Right.

They could have spent that two months pressuring Israel to open aid corridors for trucking.

And most likely have nothing to show for it. At least the dock has already achieved getting millions of pounds of aid into Gaza, and hopefully many more millions before it breaks again.

And I’m sorry, “we have to aid Israel in its genocide to stop the Republicans from winning” is a bullshit excuse.

Maybe to you, but it's a real risk. Not everyone lives in this progressive bubble of yours. I have zero confidence in the voting public, and I have far less confidence that the Republicans won't actively encourage genocide in Gaza and beyond given the president and a majority in the other branches.

I would rather do both, because I find it incredibly unlikely that stopping arms shipments today would do anything at all to dampen Israel's ability to blockaid the land routes for a very long time. I also don't think Isreal is incapable of finding weapons suppliers outside of the US if push comes to shove.

No. I'm saying that relying on that leverage completely, and expecting a fast and complete solution, and allowing the Gazians to starve to death if that hailmerry doesn't work, is completely asinine.

And that's not even taking into account what the absolute 180 on foreign policy WRT Isreal will cost us in the short and long term. It could very possibly give the entire election over to the Republicans. Which would obviously be even worse for Gaza.

You claim I'm arguing in bad faith, but all your points make insanely huge assumptions on what the US is plausibly capable of forcing, and in an insanely short timespan. Particularly taking into account how little Isreal has been willing to negotiate in good faith currently and in past.

Ok. And how has that negotiation been going?

I prefer to actually do what can be done in the short term, while we continue to work on long term solutions in tandem. Not just put all your eggs in the long term basket, and let the Palestinians starve if it takes too long, or doesn't happen at all.

My point is that stopping aid to Isreal won't put food in Palestinian bellies any time soon. And when they're starving right now, it's a useless gesture.

Actually doing what CAN be done right now, which is bypassing land chokepoints by building a non-perfect dock to offload millions of lbs of food, is the best solution I've heard of thus far, to actually stave off the immediate problem of starvation.

I'm not saying I approve of continuing to send military aid to Isreal. We can attack this from multiple fronts, but getting food and medical aid into Gaza is the most urgent need. And I don't find your efforts to undermine the most effective, if flawed, means of getting those supplies into Gaza to be helping the Palestinian's plight in the slightest.

And what other conclusion is there to your answers?

Me: How would YOU put food into Palestinian hands?

You: Stop sending aid to Isreal.

Me: How does that put food in Palestinian hands?

You: Aid trucks

You can't be dense enough to believe that if the US stops sending Isreal aid, that suddenly Isreal will suddenly magically be completely disarmed, and aid trucks will suddenly be able to move freely. Aid trucks aren't even on the table.