Biden's retaliatory strikes in Middle East come with significant political risk: Experts

Yeah I’m generally anti us military action and I don’t want this to turn into a war again, but this really does feel like a fuck around and find out situation. US troops have been killed and strikes have continued against our ships.

And not just our ships, but global trade ships. A blatant attempt to disrupt the global economy, which much of the world relies on the world's largest navy to protect.
Just make israel stop the genocide. Houthis weren’t attacking before things got so unhinged. But no. Asshole is paving the way for trumps fascist takeover.
- They were attacking. No one cared because it didn't affect us.
- Houthis weren’t attacking before things got so unhinged.
  
  You think the Houthis are innocent babes? You should look into the war crimes they've committed. Maybe get a translation of the slogan they've had for decades "Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews." They're antisemitic psychopaths.
  
  Be a little more careful in choosing your allies, ok?
  
  I'm sorry, but you're conflating a boring statement, saying that they weren't attacking western ships, with support.
  
  Fuck you, zionist scum. I want an end to the genocide in Palestine. That's my only end. You're either dishonest or stupid.
  
  Yeah I'm not Jewish. I used to think a Jewish state wasn't necessary to provide a safe haven for Jews for times when antisemitism rises in the cycle that's been happening for centuries. Not that I was against there being a Jewish state, just didn't think it was an imperative. Antisemitism isn't going to come back, not after we've all seen the horrors of the holocaust.
  
  Comments like yours have convinced me that yeah, there actually does need to be a Jewish state.
  
  I'm not even Jewish but you're throwing slurs at me because of incorrect assumptions you're making based out of hatred. Israelis don't need to prove the necessity of a Jewish state. Your hatred proves it.
  
  Zionism is not Judaism. Zionism requires a(n apartheid) Jewish state. Judaism does not.
  
  Jews don't need their own state, you fucking shitbag. Yes, there is antisemitism and it's wrong. Do you think every minority deserves to wipe out other minorities to have their own state? They don't. Everyone deserves to live freely wherever they are.
  
  Zionism is shit. Judaism is religion. I hate religion, but not Jews. Get fucked.
  
  Honest question, how do you feel about Pakistan?
  
  Victims of genocide. What other interpretation could there be?
  
  Pakistan, not Palestine. The Muslim state that was established roughly around the same time and roughly the same manner.

putting military bases outsude your borders all over the planet should come with significant risks

But the US should be allowed to put bases wherever it wants?

Yeah when we ask the government of that place, and they say yes, we should then feel free to do that.
- The US "asks"
  
  Look at the ruins left all over that region to see what happens to countries that don't cooperate.
  
  They get overrun by the local threats the USA may have been able to help with? I mean, there's obviously nuance here, but you aren't using it either so
  
  Don't waste your time. This user has gems like:
  
  Liberals in America are just right wing anti-communists, they’re not leftists at all. As for Bernie, social-democracy is the moderate wing of fascism and that’s why he supports Biden’s genocide.
  
  Both parties are evil because this is an evil country that must be stopped.
  
  But I’m quite serious about hating America. No one should be president and we should do everything possible to make that a reality.
  
  And told me that Russia is less corrupt and authoritarian than the USA. They ran away from that conversation once facts were laid out.
  
  Ah, a tankie... has someone let in the hexbears again?
  
  Liberals in America are just right wing anti-communists, they're not leftists at all.
  
  This is factually true
  
  The Democratic Party covers a range from supporters of European-style Social Democracy (Sanders, Cortez, etc.) to the moderate center-right. The former is definitely part of the leftist spectrum. They would be at least slightly left of the center in Europe and most definitely are by American standards.
  
  The fact that there aren't any noteworthy Communist politicians in the US isn't all that surprising given that America wasn't exactly receptive to this ideology for most of its history and that the the whole Marxist Leninist world revolution ended up being a rather embarrassing failure. Arbitrarily claiming that anyone who is anti-communist, which is hardly an unreasonable position, can't be leftist is just absurd.
  
  You have just explained Chomsky's limits on the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Most of these Democrats are fiscally moderate at best and foreign policy aligns quite closely with US interests. Every single one is McCarthy levels of fervently anti-communist.
  
  When every single senator and Congress member vote to agree on the defense budget, I can't take you seriously when you speak about the 'diversity' of Democrats.
  
  Actually I went to work and your post required too much to respond during a bathroom break.
  
  I'll get to you this afternoon!
  
  Looking forward to it. Especially where you'll come up with 6 million deficit in domestic murders akin to the Stalin Regime.
  
  Or what compares to being imprisoned for 15 years for a blank protest sign or publicly opposing the war in Ukraine.
  
  The USSR doesn't exist anymore
  
  Also, here's a life sentence for weed
  
  You brought up Stalin yourself in the conversation. Why suddenly cherry-pick date ranges now? Besides, Putin openly wrote in an essay how he wanted to go back to those good old days. With Rasputin-like friends like Dugin, no need to go back to the USSR to see that the Russian Federation yearns to go right back to that.
  
  Yep, that sucks.
  
  Russia is still worse.
  
  War on trans and homosexual rights.
  
  15 years for tweet just opposing Russia's aggressive act against Ukraine, or even a blank protest board.
  
  Drug laws aren't too kind in Russia, either. Just see what happened to Brittney Griner or Marc Fogel.
  
  Local threats the US created 🙄
  
  Honestly tho. ISIS was born in Abu Graib, a US run prison. The Taliban was a reaction to the warlords the US funded in the war against the USSR. Hamas has been funded by Israel, a US supported ally, for years. All the alternatives to Hamas in Gaza were suppressed. And this is just the middle east. The same pattern is repeated in South America and East Asia.
Do they put them wherever they want, or in coordination with the local sovereign governments?
- Well, they are still illegally occupying a third of Syria. https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2023/04/29/us-in-syria-the-forgotten-illegal-occupation
  
  And ofcourse, this gem... https://youtu.be/U10p3Tn9V5Y?t=19
  
  If I'm honest that's one occupation I'm fine with remaining illegal. Fuck the Assad regime, and fuck Russia.
  
  Just so you know, that article you provided is made literally by the Kremlin state media, who just so happen to have bombed Syrian civilians relentlessly for years and have propped up the brutal dictator Assad for years.
  
  Also considering how much Trump cozies up to Putin, I also don't give a damn what Donnie says.
  
  Assad illegally gases Syrians
  
  You sure chose the wrong hill to die on
  
  Legacy media are really good manufacturing concent, not so good at correction stories though... Journalist Aaron Maté Debunks Syrian Gas Attack Coverup At The UN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycuPvL5pA2M
  
  Let's not act that there's been only one
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack
  
  Well, at least you didn't attack my source. Thank you for being decent.
- You can look at what happens to countries that don't "coordinate"
  
  They often crumble from internal sectarian violence. Or get overrun by Russian sock-puppets barrel-bombing and using chemical weapons against their own people. But ah, yes, while I opposed the Iraq invasion, Saddam was clearly a great guy and Iraq was thriving, right? Or how about Iran? No bases there! I'm sure the women just love their bastion of freedom from their US overlords, lol.
  
  Iraq was better off before the invasion. Fact.
  
  Also, do you think women get freedom when the US installs bases?
  
  20 years more of Saddam rule? As much as the pretense for going into Iraq was bogus, the oppressed Shia population would beg to differ.
  
  You're the one who told me to look at countries that don't coordinate with the US. I did. I'm not impressed. I look at countries like Germany today and by contrast, I am impressed. So are you impressed by Iran, Russia, North Korea? Or do you disagree with the likes of Jordan openly cooperating with the US to contain ISIS?
  
  Iraq was better off before the invasion. Fact.
  
  I don't think this is a fact. Let's look at a few metrics, starting with HDI:
  
  https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Iraq/human_development/
  
  Infant mortality rate:
  
  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/infant-mortality-rate
  
  GDP per capita (ignore the silly outlier):
  
  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/gdp-per-capita
  
  These basic figures suggest that a number of key aspects of life are indeed better than they were during the dictatorship.
  
  The homicide rate is higher now:
  
  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/murder-homicide-rate
  
  Keep in mind though that there is no way of knowing how accurate official figures from the past were (this also goes for the numbers on human and economic development, of course). Also worth noting that the government itself could kill and maim with impunity back then:
  
  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde14/003/1996/en/
  
  Freedom of the press is still pretty abysmal these days (and the page also touches on what you were likely mentioning the instability):
  
  https://rsf.org/en/country/iraq
  
  A report from 2002 on the state of affairs under Saddam's rule:
  
  https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/press.html
  
  I would admit that life in Iraq could be safer under Saddam Hussein compared to today, given that he kept a lid on especially religious conflicts, but this came with a big asterisk: Provided you didn't run afoul of the regime or provided the regime didn't think you did (no court of appeal, no independent judiciary, torture and murder are common - you can be the most loyal Baathist and still just be unlucky), provided you didn't have a pretty daughter (or were one) in a place where Saddam's son were looking for girls to rape, torture and murder, provided you weren't a member of a persecuted ethnic group, provided you didn't own something Saddam or his sons wanted from you, etc. The usual caveats of living under autocratic rule, with the added "insane son of dictator" factor (see also: what Kim Jong Il was up to in his younger days).
  
  Up to one million people are dead because of the War on Iraq. You spit on their graves when you say life is better.
  
  The upper estimates for the number of people killed under Saddam Hussein are about one million as well. Now what?
  
  So America is about as bad as Saddam Hussein?
  
  Then what was the fucking point? What did we do any of that for? Do you expect them to thank us?
  
  Power, opportunism, thirst for war, corruption (not oil though). Plenty of reasons for this war.
  
  Your logic has a flaw though: It's not like Saddam would have just stopped doing his thing in 2003 had he not been removed from power. The country was a powder keg anyway, so perhaps it would have ended up just like Syria eventually (I can't imagine the Arab Spring leaving it alone) - or perhaps we would have seen another war between it and Iran. Another possibility would have been Iraq attacking a neighbor other than Iran again, perhaps at a time when they weren't expecting a harsh American response (e.g. under a Democratic US presidency).
  
  None of this excuses that Bush and Blair made up reasons to invade the country nor the incompetent handling of it afterwards that led to most of the up to one million dead post-Saddam, but let's not pretend that everything would have been rosy had the second Gulf War not happened.
  
  One of the dumbest fucking comments I've ever read on this platform..
  
  Iraq can only finally start to recover now that it is asking the US military to leave.
  
  Oh, but the US won't leave. You okay with that too?
  
  Yeah I am. Have you been there? They're not ready.. exhibit a: every article about US bombings this week..
  
  They don't want us there! What right do we have to decide if they are "ready"?
  
  That's some white man's burden bullshit.