Key Democrats allow US sale of F-15 jets to Israel in $18 billion deal
Key Democrats allow US sale of F-15 jets to Israel in $18 billion deal
Two key congressional Democrats have given their approval to allow the Biden administration to proceed with what is believed to be the biggest weapons package for Israel, expected to be worth more than $18 billion and include some 50 F-15 fighter jets.
Just in case you thought maybe the Dems had finally seen the light after Rafah. Nope! How about even more bombs for Israel?
You're viewing a single thread.
These Jets should be going to Ukraine not an Israeli warlord.
To be honest, we should be pushing for peace there too. Ukraine is taking hits that they won't recover from and it is quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict. We need less war and less war machines in the world, not more.
Russia is the country imposing the invasion in Ukraine. Russia is the only country that can stop doing the invasion.
Russia is also supporting Hamas. Both wars are part of a global conflict already.
lol so now Russia is your reason why Israel is allowed to commit genocide? You're political/moral compass is broken, mate.
Don't be myopic about it, Russia has been just as manipulative in the Middle East as the U.S.
Yes, both the US and Russia use proxies in the middle east to fight each other and have for years. But that has little to do with Israel's active genocide.
Who you were responding to mentioned Hamas and you immediately equated that with the Palestinian people. You really can't defend Hamas and Russia in this when this is just a recurrence of the power plays that have historically shaped our current system. There are very few on the "right" side of this.
Conveniently, Israel treats all Palestinians as if they were Hamas militants (who themselves are a resistance group resisting modern settler colonialism). Hamas is a convenient reason for them to ethnically cleanse a whole people. How is that difficult to see as the wrong side?
You can't just handwave Israel committing atrocity after atrocity after (but especially prior to) October 7th. It isn't that difficult to see which side is the wrong side for anyone with a couple brain cells and a functioning moral compass. Colonialism was terrible in the past and it is terrible in the present. Genocide and apartheid are bad for anyone who are not racists. Pretty easy line there.
edit: also the person I responded to poorly defends Israel in every thread and regularly uses bad faith argumentative tactics to spin out more propaganda. That is partially why I felt the need to respond.
Did you stalk my comment history too? You would see I'm 100% for the Palestinian people and against this genocide. My point being, if you're gonna run to a side in this you just picked wrong.
Edit: Imperialism is the enemy here not colonialism, which was stopped being used in the 1940's
Whoa, colonialism is absolutely alive and well. Colonialist projects, Israel included, still exist today, and of course many countries that began as settler-colonialism (which is distinct from plain 'colonialism') still exist everywhere, and still keep their native populations marginalized and under attack.
Israel is quite practically the most textbook definition of a Settler-Colonialist state that there is, especially given that they themselves still even use the term "settlements" to describe their continued displacement of Palestinians.
I didn't stalk anyones comment history, I have just interacted with that person a bit. Come on lemmy is not that active, especially on beehaw. It is basically the same names commenting on this shit lol
But Israel is a settler colonial project which is a type of colonialism and is still valid. And I don't understand your point, it doesn't make sense.
You don't get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn't an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
"If you invade us, we'll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars" just encourages imperialist aggression.
Is that why the imperialist United States of America has 750+ military bases in 80 countries? Lol the fucking hypocrisy dude
Yes, obviously the US is a massive Imperialist power. I don't want it to have those bases, or nuclear weapons, or even a military or government at all, but I sure as hell don't want it to be replaced by an openly autocratic imperialist power that also has all those things anyways, which is what Russia is aspiring to be under Putin.
But that is a completely orthogonal discussion as to whether Force is required to stop malicious actors from imposing their will on others through violent Force themselves. That is, as an anarchist, a basic requirement of human interaction; self defense and defense of others.
What hypocrisy do you think is taking place here?
How do you want us to push for peace there too? Because we have been since the beginning of the war in my eyes.
What do you mean by "won't recover from"? Because they have lost things that can't be recovered since the beginning of the war. Russia is losing things they can't recover too; thousands of its people for example, it's money reserves, its military inventory, its non-military-sector economy. Where do you draw the line for Russia and Ukraine of what is "won't recover from"? Western nations have already committed to helping rebuild the country and especially its destroyed infrastructure.
How is the war in Ukraine "quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict"? Fighting is still only within Ukraine and the border to Russia. Western material support has been the case since the beginning.
I have to assume by pushing for peace you mean Ukraine should accept losing large parts of its territory and human atrocities in order for the fighting to end. Is letting Russia win going to reduce conflict long term though? They'll have more resources to invade other countries next. And proof that it's a worth investment. That works and they win from. There was precedent before the current war in Ukraine, which is why they started this invasion in the first place. Only this time it didn't go as smoothly.
Throwing gasoline at a fire is not going to put it out.
The US and NATO recently authorized Ukraine to use Nato controlled weapons offensively. That is a global escalation that involves Nato member states for coordination. If you don't think the escalation is growing then you aren't actually paying attention.
There has been peace talks but there has been western pressure to decline the deals. The US doesn't give a shit about what happens to Ukraine. Come on, they don't even care about us (americans), their own citizens. Ukraine has been proxy to the US for a while and the US will use whatever proxy they have to do battle with Russia no matter the collateral damage.
There is a lot of propaganda on both sides of this conflict but everyone on lemmy and reddit gobble up the western propaganda without a doubt. Let's put away the military boners and try for some actual fucking diplomacy.
How much does Putin pay you?
lol I wish I got paid some money for trying to talk some sense into pro war idiots on the internet.
edit: For real though, why is that your reaction to literal facts? Some of you are too fucking gone to reason with 😅
Because you literally act like a mouthpiece with your constant apologetics for the aggression and war crimes of a tinpot dictator.
It isn't even apologetics, it's just analysis that isn't "russia bad america good". My point in the other thread you called me out in is just as valid here, nobody can talk about this shit rationally without spewing western propaganda and even when actual facts and valid criticisms are brought up, this is the rhetoric people retort to. "This person said something that gives a sliver of doubt to the active liberal thought pattern therefore he must be a russian shill."
I just have to assume you are a bunch of children or state actors at this point because it is infuriatingly ridiculous and naive.
Fire is not sentient. It doesn't strategize. It can't use your feelings about wanting to minimize it's damage against you. Humans can, and do.
Does your diplomacy include Ukraine giving up land?
I generally stay out of these Ukraine discussions, but Russia is clearly the aggressor.
Unless you can justify what valid reason Russia had to attack Ukraine or what you mean by diplomacy, then it's a non argument.
Russia clearly isn't interested in discussions unless they involve surrendering..
The US backed coup in 2014 and the threat of NATO expansion on it's borders are some fairly obvious pieces of that puzzle but everybody here just claims "russian propaganda" when those facts are brought into the discussion.
Are you seriously calling a populist uprising a "US backed coup", implying the US had a hand in it, simply because the US ideologically supported their goals?
NATO expansion is not a justification for invading another country, especially a non-NATO one. Ukraine has the right to self-determination and freedom to associate with whomever they want, and Russia doesn't get to tell them who they can or can't be friends with.
I can only assume based on this that you philosophically support the Bay of Pigs operation, as the US saw Soviet expansion near them as a threat.
Putin didnt make his move on Crimea because he was trying to defend Russia, he did it because he knew that his plans to reassimilate Ukraine were threatened by the new Ukranian government. And the 2022 expansion of the invasion just proves that.
Fitting but a little ironic to bring that up. The Bay of Pigs and everything that lead up to that is a great example of what the US gets up to globally and exactly the kind of thing that makes me question the western narrative. They (the CIA) didn't just stop doing shit like that.
That being said, I don't support Russia either. I am not apologizing for their actions just providing pieces of explanations. Let's not pretend that they haven't had NATO expansion as a big red line on their list for a long time. The threat of more NATO at their border within an arms reach of their major cities is obviously fair. But I do think they are using that as an excuse while at the same time I think the US is taking major advantage of this situation. That is, in my opinion, a problem for peace.
Sure, countries have the right to self determine but you can't ignore the diplomatic consequences of that. Shit doesn't exist in a bubble. And the populist uprising was not so free from western influence. Come on thats CIA playbook 101 😅
Anyways, it is obviously a complex situation but the instant overnight prowar stance everyone has had since day 1 of this invasion is steeped with propaganda and people are immediately shutdown for questioning any part of the narrative and being labeled "putin's puppet". That is my real issue with this discourse. You cannot look at history and honestly think America is the good guys at pretty much any point post-ww2 so question the fuckin narrative.
I appreciate your willingness to question the narrative and push for peace even while everyone seems to have a real appetite for war. I found this article from 2014 that discusses the US's influence in the 2014 protests. The cited experts are Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. They discuss a recorded phone conversation where two US State Dept officials are going over who they want in power in Ukraine. Snyder seems pretty convinced that the 2014 protests and elections were genuine, regardless of State Department conversations about who they want to win. Then you have McGovern, who has experience in this sort of thing, saying that the CIA does not really do this sort of thing anymore, and so the State Dept does it instead. And as i'm reading, he seems quite convinced that the US was placing its thumb on the scales, and he seems to agree that maybe this should be resolved by everyone coming to the table.
McGovern's most convincing piece of evidence is this:
The other thing is, you know, Professor Snyder talks about the parliamentary vote, voting in the new government. Well, he must know that that was a rump vote. I think it was—I think it was unanimous, something like 253 to nothing, which, you know, really is sort of a nostalgic look back at the votes that I used to count in the Soviet Union. There’s something very smelly here.
But I looked it up, and it seems like in 2014, the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was elected via a parliamentary election where he got 371 of the 372 members that voted. Which sounds suspicious, but you should factor in the other 78 members that were either abstaining or not voting. Is it strange? Sure, but here's another theory: the protests happened with no or very little Western influence, but the elections happened with lots of implied Western influence. There was a lot of crisis and turmoil, protests and corruption combined with Russian soldiers on the doorstep. The Parliament was under a lot of pressure to act swiftly and decisively to ease unrest. So they picked up the phone when the US called, and listened to their advice. In this way, the US got the outcome it wanted, but not by particularly manipulative means. They just offered their advice, and the Parliament listened. And so, all of the anti or neutral-to-Russia Parliament simply fell in line, to bring stability to the country.
Now, I have no evidence of this. This is just my extended thoughts on the matter after trying to understand your point of view. I think the reason many are quick to defend Ukraine's side in this conflict is that Russia has shown itself to be corrupt, fascistic, and manipulative in foreign and domestic affairs multiple times over the past decade or so. And in the context of what has happened and continues to happen, it's hard to be sympathetic to Russia's "position" when they've been shown to argue in bad faith over and over again. It's impossible for us to know what the people of Crimea want because they live under an authoritarian regime. It's impossible for us to make treaties and concessions to Russia because they always break them. Every barrier to peace seems to be created by Russia, so people side with Ukraine, the underdog that they know very little about.
Thanks for the reasonable response, it was interesting to read. I guess it could make sense but wow how convenient 😅