The Biden's Israel bashing thread
ajay said:
It's true that, Lepp. The coverage by the UK's press of what's happening in the Middle East has been nothing short of disgraceful.
🇵🇸
Yes, and that's the trouble. No adult conversation is possible. It's all down to emotional manipulation keeping people at stress-factor 100+ so they can't think for themselves - and then eventually will vote for 'the strong man' to 'sort it all out' on their behalf.
Personally I am intrigued why so many 'leaders' are so scared of criticising Israel - who has the real power?
It's true that, Lepp. The coverage by the UK's press of what's happening in the Middle East has been nothing short of disgraceful.
🇵🇸
Yes, and that's the trouble. No adult conversation is possible. It's all down to emotional manipulation keeping people at stress-factor 100+ so they can't think for themselves - and then eventually will vote for 'the strong man' to 'sort it all out' on their behalf.
Personally I am intrigued why so many 'leaders' are so scared of criticising Israel - who has the real power?
Josh said:
Yes, and that's the trouble. No adult conversation is possible. It's all down to emotional manipulation keeping people at stress-factor 100+ so they can't think for themselves - and then eventually will vote for 'the strong man' to 'sort it all out' on their behalf.
Personally I am intrigued why so many 'leaders' are so scared of criticising Israel - who has the real power?
.its never the leaders who kick a fuss. This clip is from early on in the latest ethnic cleansing. It's our leader taking a question from the opposition
https://www.youtube.com/live/PISs0AwztGQ?si=snvZ6uX_t4ySR51i
Yes, and that's the trouble. No adult conversation is possible. It's all down to emotional manipulation keeping people at stress-factor 100+ so they can't think for themselves - and then eventually will vote for 'the strong man' to 'sort it all out' on their behalf.
Personally I am intrigued why so many 'leaders' are so scared of criticising Israel - who has the real power?
.its never the leaders who kick a fuss. This clip is from early on in the latest ethnic cleansing. It's our leader taking a question from the opposition
https://www.youtube.com/live/PISs0AwztGQ?si=snvZ6uX_t4ySR51i
lepperochan said:
.its never the leaders who kick a fuss. This clip is from early on in the latest ethnic cleansing. It's our leader taking a question from the opposition
https://www.youtube.com/live/PISs0AwztGQ?si=snvZ6uX_t4ySR51i
Thanks for the link -- very interesting to watch & listen.
.its never the leaders who kick a fuss. This clip is from early on in the latest ethnic cleansing. It's our leader taking a question from the opposition
https://www.youtube.com/live/PISs0AwztGQ?si=snvZ6uX_t4ySR51i
Thanks for the link -- very interesting to watch & listen.
Conservative "leadership" worldwide have all sufficiently demonstrated that civilian lives are completely expendable if it means preserving whatever fighting force they have at their command. Chivalry is dead and 9/11 is the dagger still sticking out of its back, but the trend has been developing ever since the Vietnam war (at least).
I think it should be made clear, especially given the title of this thread, that the foreign policy of the US is not determined by the US president, in exactly the same way as British foreign policy is not decided by the British PM. Foreign policy in Britain is determined by high-ranking civil service officials of the relevant department; US foreign policy by the US equivalent. Any attempt by an elected politician in an influential position in either country to deviate from the official line would result, in Britain, in character assassination of that person – witness Jeremy Corbyn. In the US, actual assassination would no doubt be the outcome. The foreign policy of both countries is to protect the financial interests of their respective ruling class. That Israel remains where it is is vital to the financial interests of both the British and US ruling classes, hence the unqualified support for the current barbarities of Israel. If Trump were the US president, US support for Israel would remain unchanged.
🇵🇸
🇵🇸
ajay said:I think it should be made clear, especially given the title of this thread, that the foreign policy of the US is not determined by the US president, in exactly the same way as British foreign policy is not decided by the British PM. Foreign policy in Britain is determined by high-ranking civil service officials of the relevant department; US foreign policy by the US equivalent. Any attempt by an elected politician in an influential position in either country to deviate from the official line would result, in Britain, in character assassination of that person – witness Jeremy Corbyn. In the US, actual assassination would no doubt be the outcome. The foreign policy of both countries is to protect the financial interests of their respective ruling class. That Israel remains where it is is vital to the financial interests of both the British and US ruling classes, hence the unqualified support for the current barbarities of Israel. If Trump were the US president, US support for Israel would remain unchanged.
🇵🇸
Sorry, man but thats just not true. The US president unlike the UK prime minister is the commander in chief of all armed forces in America. His joint chiefs do what he says or produce a plan for him to OK
Corbyn was charactar assassinated to stop him coming to power, same as Tony Benn before him
He still needs to OK it, simple
🇵🇸
Sorry, man but thats just not true. The US president unlike the UK prime minister is the commander in chief of all armed forces in America. His joint chiefs do what he says or produce a plan for him to OK
Corbyn was charactar assassinated to stop him coming to power, same as Tony Benn before him
He still needs to OK it, simple
U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president#Powers%20of%20The%20President
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president#Powers%20of%20The%20President
lepperochan said:
Sorry, man but thats just not true. The US president unlike the UK prime minister is the commander in chief of all armed forces in America. His joint chiefs do what he says or produce a plan for him to OK
He still needs to OK it, simple
[quote-571917-lepperochan]
I'm going to have to disagree with you, I'm afraid, Lepp. The US President may indeed be the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces in name but he is not in fact, in exactly the same way that King Charles is the Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces in name but he is not in fact. If you honestly believe that the US President is able unilaterally to determine and implement major decisions relating to the foreign policy of the US, you're naive in the extreme. The US supports and will continue to support Israel regardless of which member of which party happens to be the incumbent simply because Israel's role in maintaining the 'balance of power' in the Middle East is vital to the interests of American Big Business. Think Big Oil.
🇵🇸
Sorry, man but thats just not true. The US president unlike the UK prime minister is the commander in chief of all armed forces in America. His joint chiefs do what he says or produce a plan for him to OK
He still needs to OK it, simple
[quote-571917-lepperochan]
I'm going to have to disagree with you, I'm afraid, Lepp. The US President may indeed be the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces in name but he is not in fact, in exactly the same way that King Charles is the Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces in name but he is not in fact. If you honestly believe that the US President is able unilaterally to determine and implement major decisions relating to the foreign policy of the US, you're naive in the extreme. The US supports and will continue to support Israel regardless of which member of which party happens to be the incumbent simply because Israel's role in maintaining the 'balance of power' in the Middle East is vital to the interests of American Big Business. Think Big Oil.
🇵🇸
Any potential president of the USA will always gush out the words "I'm a friend of Israel' (else they have no hope of getting into office). I'm intrigued as to why?
Why does a little country, less than 100 years old, have such power over big countries like America, and most Western countries too whose prime-ministers fall over themselves not to 'upset' Israel by calling a spade a spade. And though a signficant factor, it probably runs much deeper than Big Oil.
And yes, Jeremy Corbyn was indeed caharcter assassinated for saying a few things, which by 1970s Labour standards, was really pretty mild -- showing how far politics has shifted to the Right. One wonders when suggesting to help those less fortunate than oneself became a political sin, and the end of one's political career. I guess that's why Starmer does what he does. So much for principles and standing by them.
Why does a little country, less than 100 years old, have such power over big countries like America, and most Western countries too whose prime-ministers fall over themselves not to 'upset' Israel by calling a spade a spade. And though a signficant factor, it probably runs much deeper than Big Oil.
And yes, Jeremy Corbyn was indeed caharcter assassinated for saying a few things, which by 1970s Labour standards, was really pretty mild -- showing how far politics has shifted to the Right. One wonders when suggesting to help those less fortunate than oneself became a political sin, and the end of one's political career. I guess that's why Starmer does what he does. So much for principles and standing by them.
MidnightSonneteer said:Conservative "leadership" worldwide have all sufficiently demonstrated that civilian lives are completely expendable if it means preserving whatever fighting force they have at their command. Chivalry is dead and 9/11 is the dagger still sticking out of its back, but the trend has been developing ever since the Vietnam war (at least).
I'm currently reading Vera Brittain's "Testament of Youth" about the lost generation of the First World War. The insights, personal accounts, and treating masses of young men as cannon-fodder (or 'unpeople' - a term I think coined by Orwell) show me little has changed - you are right - if not Dulce et Decorum Est itself is still alive and well, then at least the attitude of 'leaders' that would support such a notion is still alive and well -- unfortunately.
I'm currently reading Vera Brittain's "Testament of Youth" about the lost generation of the First World War. The insights, personal accounts, and treating masses of young men as cannon-fodder (or 'unpeople' - a term I think coined by Orwell) show me little has changed - you are right - if not Dulce et Decorum Est itself is still alive and well, then at least the attitude of 'leaders' that would support such a notion is still alive and well -- unfortunately.
Josh said:Any potential president of the USA will always gush out the words "I'm a friend of Israel' (else they have no hope of getting into office). I'm intrigued as to why? [ . . . ]
One word: Religion. God's chosen according to the Christian Bible ( and Hebrew Tanakh ). Jesus was, after all, a Jew.
One word: Religion. God's chosen according to the Christian Bible ( and Hebrew Tanakh ). Jesus was, after all, a Jew.
Here are the thoughts I posted on the matter back on the first of the month, for anyone who hasn't seen them, and will only add that as I watch the CBS evening news coverage of the conflict it is always tagged..."War in The Holy Land"...which I wish they would not do since...
A. Massacres aren't quite the same as wars, per se.
B. Is a land really Holy if it's always a violent place.
Excogitations...
If the recent events in the middle east answer any lingering questions, such as what exactly does organized religion organize for, then now the answer is clear…they organize for violence.
There is no such thing as a Levantine religion of peace.
Subsequently to this we must wonder what it is about the Levantine oriented beliefs that so virulently promote violence, not only in the middle east, but worldwide.
And the answer to that is the enabling idea of an afterlife, and all the phantasmagorical promises that come with it. Once a rube is conditioned (groomed) to be a part of the afterlife belief community then they no longer have a stake in the community of the here and now living reality, with all of its obvious inconveniences. Thusly all such belief is a de-facto death cult since they enable all the psychological motivation many suicidal and homicidal folk already possess to commit the atrocities which are often at play in their ugly emotional crannies.
Heap into all this the industrial surplus of weapon idolizing conservative culture in every corner of the uneducated world and we have the perfect global recipe for total war, which is what the global apocalyptically minded conservatives had in mind all along.
What to do? Just what may the remedy be?
Frankly, the world has progressed well past any point of return toward some sort of peace-loving existence because the practitioners of invective have already poisoned the common mindset so badly that war is inevitable. Conservatives know full well that there are enough weak-minded people who can, and have been, inculcated toward all manner of hideous social sabotage.
Even a cursory historical survey is enough to let us conclude that almost all warfare has been attributable to conservative scheming and hyperactively maniacal rhetoric. Even “peaceful” biblical traditions such as shunning do not encourage conflict resolution, other than continued warfare.
Ratio and proportion used to be valued in the classical world, so much so that the notions were even applied to judicial practice, but the total warfare encouraged by capitalistic elites regularly nurture the reprehensibly massive kill ratios of many multiples of civilian casualties for every combatant, all to preserve the welfare of each and every inaccurately perceived “chivalrous” trooper, who commonly commits a sickening diversity of war crime.
There’s not much we can do as individuals, but we can choose not to associate with the people we already know are afterlife idolizers and violence enablers. Many of us already know this at some level, but now is the time to call a murderer for what he is, no matter who, or at whatever social station he happens to be, if only to keep the conscience clear.
A. Massacres aren't quite the same as wars, per se.
B. Is a land really Holy if it's always a violent place.
Excogitations...
If the recent events in the middle east answer any lingering questions, such as what exactly does organized religion organize for, then now the answer is clear…they organize for violence.
There is no such thing as a Levantine religion of peace.
Subsequently to this we must wonder what it is about the Levantine oriented beliefs that so virulently promote violence, not only in the middle east, but worldwide.
And the answer to that is the enabling idea of an afterlife, and all the phantasmagorical promises that come with it. Once a rube is conditioned (groomed) to be a part of the afterlife belief community then they no longer have a stake in the community of the here and now living reality, with all of its obvious inconveniences. Thusly all such belief is a de-facto death cult since they enable all the psychological motivation many suicidal and homicidal folk already possess to commit the atrocities which are often at play in their ugly emotional crannies.
Heap into all this the industrial surplus of weapon idolizing conservative culture in every corner of the uneducated world and we have the perfect global recipe for total war, which is what the global apocalyptically minded conservatives had in mind all along.
What to do? Just what may the remedy be?
Frankly, the world has progressed well past any point of return toward some sort of peace-loving existence because the practitioners of invective have already poisoned the common mindset so badly that war is inevitable. Conservatives know full well that there are enough weak-minded people who can, and have been, inculcated toward all manner of hideous social sabotage.
Even a cursory historical survey is enough to let us conclude that almost all warfare has been attributable to conservative scheming and hyperactively maniacal rhetoric. Even “peaceful” biblical traditions such as shunning do not encourage conflict resolution, other than continued warfare.
Ratio and proportion used to be valued in the classical world, so much so that the notions were even applied to judicial practice, but the total warfare encouraged by capitalistic elites regularly nurture the reprehensibly massive kill ratios of many multiples of civilian casualties for every combatant, all to preserve the welfare of each and every inaccurately perceived “chivalrous” trooper, who commonly commits a sickening diversity of war crime.
There’s not much we can do as individuals, but we can choose not to associate with the people we already know are afterlife idolizers and violence enablers. Many of us already know this at some level, but now is the time to call a murderer for what he is, no matter who, or at whatever social station he happens to be, if only to keep the conscience clear.
