154
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by xuxebiko@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Rather than demand an immediate ceasefire, the Biden administration is actively working to further provide cover for Israeli atrocities in Gaza

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We don't have an antiwar party anymore, that ended with Obama's first term. God forbid you don't vote for either of the war mongering parties though, then the US voters will tell you you're the problem.

[-] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 1 year ago

We've never had an anti war party

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

We used to have anti-war politicians that were just called democrats, now anti-war is progressive it keeps being pushed further outside of the political binary. Whatever we did have is being chipped away.

[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Oh? Which dems were anti war?

[-] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago
[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yeah true

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

John Kerry is probably the most notable one, they even ran him as their presidential candidate in 04. Whens the last time you heard any democrat nearly as high up as a president candidate even talk about war in any capacity other than some 'support our troops' line.

[-] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Dems were never anti-war. The US has never been anti-war. The US is a settler state just like Israel.

[-] ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What does that mean though, "anti-war party," "anti-war politician"?

Did your "anti-war party" stop being so because they'd ended the war we were in? And if so, wasn't that a good thing, for those with an "anti-war" outlook?

Back in the late 1930s, I'm pretty sure America's "anti-war party" was mostly isolationists and some Nazi sympathizers. It was FDR, one of the most progressive Democrats ever elected to the office, who led the country to war back then.

If your entire political belief system is based on avoiding war at all costs, you deny yourself any real-world context in exchange for that purist ideology.

Those who are anti-war above all else lose everything they have and everything they stand for, the first time someone (anyone!) else decides to threaten them with war. The first time that someone sneak-attacks their Pearl Harbor, or crashes planes into their Twin Towers, or whatever else.

Maybe war is like abortion (in this singularly metaphorical political sense). Nobody ever really wants it to happen, and most people do their best to try to avoid it for themselves and others. Yet sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, it ends up being the safest and healthiest way, sometimes the only way, out of an untenable situation not completely of our own making.

I'm not arguing that World War II was a "good" war and that W. Bush's Iraq was a "bad" war. That may comport with my personal beliefs, but my real point is that everyone has their own personal beliefs. Everyone has something that is most important to them.

If you say that war is never justified for any reason, then you are also saying that your call for pacifism is more important than whatever the reason for the war may be. Not just more important for you, but for everyone else too.

[-] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Problem is usually wars are justified by money or lies or politics, not by things like "defending democracy" or "stopping a genocide"

Those justifications are usually made up at the time it becomes convenient or politically necessary to enter a war.

[-] sciawp@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Hot take but you’re right and you should say it. Being ‘anti-war’ is what has led to people to say that Ukraine should just give up and the US shouldn’t be aiding them in protecting themselves. Sometimes war is justified, though it should be minimized as much as possible

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Too long, didn't read

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The 2,000 troops as "advisors" is hopefully a move to get Israel to tone down the war criming. Heaven knows they don't need any real help committing genocide, they've been practicing for decades.

[-] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

You think US troops will help tone down the atrocities? Have I got news for you.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I can hear Vietnamese and Laotian people side-eying you from half-way around the planet.

[-] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago
[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] xuxebiko@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry to have missed it while posting, I've updated it now. Thanks for calling it out.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

US and genocide go together like lightning and thunder.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

I will not vote for genocide, no matter how hard Dems try to guilt trip me into voting blue.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
154 points (77.5% liked)

World News

32359 readers
435 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS