As a note, this strike was successful, and significantly relieved food insecurity in Dublin.

at a certain point, you have to recognize that “not as bad” is still “Bad enough”.

Fuck man, have you looked at the international scene? The Middle East more than most? We don’t have ‘good’ choices, they’re all ‘bad enough’. And inaction is a choice just as any other. Inaction SHOULD be chosen in many scenarios - but because it is often the best choice, not because it relieves moral responsibility. It doesn’t.

The moral option is to pick the path with the least bad outcome.

Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn’t mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

No longer supporting the ongoing genocide is a very different issue than allowing Iran to attack Israel. Discouraging Iran from attacking Israel is not supporting one genocide - it is preventing another.

Your acting like it’s somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries.

Am I? News to me. I stated outright that Israel is committing genocide currently. How much harsher do you want me to get in condemnation? Is ‘genocide’ no longer the lowest sin a country can commit? Do I have to invent a new form of democide to assign them before my condemnation is strong enough?

it’s not. it’s hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

It’s not about condemnation. It’s about what happens if we allow Iran to provoke a war with Israel. It’s inhumane to demand another 100,000+ (assuming it DOESN’T kick off WW3) added to the body count because 30,000+ have already been killed. Why? What does allowing Iran to attack Israel solve?

Materially speaking, what are the effects, and can you answer for them?

it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don’t think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don’t. But constantly defending Israel when it’s obviously bullying other nations… is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

Is it? Are two massacres more right than one? If it was a question of “Let Palestinians be genocided OR let Israel be attacked and potentially start WW3”, I might be inclined to agree on principle. But it’s not an either/or. Iran isn’t going to knock out Israel in three days. Genocidaires tend to intensify their genocidal efforts when under attack, not diminish it. Letting Israel get invaded just means that we have a massive body count of Israeli civilians in addition, not instead of the Palestinian genocide.

Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

Ultimately, we should decouple from Israel completely, but even then, the more invasions of sovereign countries are tolerated, the more it will happen. That’s one of many, many reasons the Iraq War was such a colossal fucking atrocity.

I would like to emphasize that my position on genocide is the same - the more it is tolerated, the more it will happen, and the moral move would be to put immense pressure on Israel to cease its ongoing operations and restore the flow of aid to Gaza, at minimum.

No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

It’s tone-deaf at minimum. But world politics are often performed on the public stage. I don’t know if there was another viable answer he could have given as POTUS.

We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad.

“Hey Iran, feel free to attack Israel” would not exactly be a recipe for LESS death and destruction in the Middle East.

This going to sound super far fetch, I know… But one can identify a problem without knowing the solution. OP isn’t running for president.

“We’re trying to stop fascism. What’s your solution?”

“I don’t have one, but I really don’t like what YOU’RE trying to stop it, and I will try to convince everyone that your way is unacceptable!”

In other words, if you’re not going to help, get the fuck out of the way.

Wake me when the notice is carried out.

When I pressed further, asking if Torres planned to call for a vote to censure, I received no reply.

… did the author of the article forget that a censure isn’t just a handful of Congresscritters deciding to express their displeasure, and is instead an actual vote that requires majority support to pass?

Sometimes I wonder if some of these people would be more comfortable with the Tea Party. The pointless loyalty signaling at the expense of actual attempts at governance would suit them.

I like Ethiopian Jesus personally

https://kbin.social/m/politicalmemes@lemmy.world/t/927705/Please-for-the-love-of-God-VOTE#entry-comment-5928401

You see this kind of comment intermittently from certain kinds of self-proclaimed leftists, where they parrot Trumpian claims about how he was actually trying to STOP the insurrection and is Totally Innocent and therefore it’s Not A Big Deal if he wins again. Anything to feel better about helping him win against the filthy neolib Biden.

Believing Biden is just as bad is another matter entirely.

… is it? Because last I checked, there was a big difference between “Tried to overthrow a democratic process” and “Did not try to do so”.

lmao.

https://kbin.social/m/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone/t/927066/Please-for-the-love-of-God-VOTE#entry-comment-5929712

“democrats are fascist”

^This one right here is a prime example.

Stick around on here for a while - unfortunately, they’re a constant problem.

Hence “loudly proclaim to be leftists”. But many of them aren’t trolls, at least not in the sense of not meaning what they’re saying.

You yourself do that, constantly. But such lies are your kind’s bread and butter.

I’m not convinced that Biden hasn’t slowed down.

He definitely has. He’s not as snappy as he was in 2012. But it’s normal old guy ‘slow down’. My grandfather, STTL, slowed down in the last 15 years of his life, but remained quite sharp from an objective standpoint.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter. The people equating the two will loudly proclaim to be leftists while simultaneously saying that Trump wasn’t actually trying to interrupt the certification of Joe Biden, and that Trump actually was trying to STOP the ‘unruly protest’. No amount of arguing can get through to people who have no interests other than smug contrarianism.

I wish.

I’m just one of many people who cannot bring themselves to vote for somebody who is enabling genocide, and who cannot go back to his neighbors or constituents and look them in the eye and say, ​“I know that you’ve lost somebody in the West Bank or Gaza,” or, ​“I know that this is an issue that’s incredibly important to you, but that’s not good enough anymore.” And I think taking people for granted, taking voters for granted, has to end.

Oh, good, then they can look forward to going up to their neighbors, looking them in the eye, and saying “I know that you’ve lost somebody in the West Bank or Gaza; and so in solidarity with you, I’ve decided to ensure that LGBT and minorities here in America suffer too, and you’ll likely be among them.”

I have no problem with people voting uncommitted in the primary. But saying “There is no lesser of two evils!!!” is privileged and short-sighted as fuck.