Biden said to call Netanyahu 'a f**king liar' after Israeli troops entered Rafah | The Times of Israel
Biden said to call Netanyahu 'a f**king liar' after Israeli troops entered Rafah | The Times of Israel
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I think part of why you're getting downvoted to hell is because your initial comment reads like "I don't have the answers (none of us do), but I know yours is wrong. I'm not contributing any facts to show why you're wrong, but because I feel strongly that you are, I've decided to be insulting about it."
I get it, world politics is complicated. Absolutely no action on a world stage is without unexpected consequences. But that in itself is not an argument for arming an ethnostate we know to be killing civilians at an alarming rate. And the unexpected consequences would have to be damned severe to outweigh the known consequences of our current actions: if we keep providing weapons to Israel, those weapons will be used to kill women and children in droves.
No, I’m being downvoted because the majority of lemmy doesn’t understand how nuanced topics work. It’s all or nothing. “With us, or against us.”
It’s a hive mind mentality here.
With this in mind, it’s not a stretch to understand that one doesn’t need to know how things should be done to know how things shouldn’t be done.
Want an example? I don’t know the right way to safely jump out of an airplane is, but I know that doing it without a parachute is fucking stupid.
And this same logic is applied to the idea that it’s easy to just end treaties and agreements and assume there’d be no consequences. Those that have the power to end them- yeah.. THEY know.
But I know, it’s SOOOOOO much easier to just fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit suits an argument than it is to actually look into it. I’ve looked into it. And as I r already mentioned- EXPERTS in the field have said it’s incredibly complicated
Lastly, I don’t give a shit about being downvoted. It’s an irrelevant and worthless carryover from Reddit that should never have happened.
This is a nice little rant, but there is nothing "complicated" about the Leahy law or the State Department discretion unless you're literally a child or have some kind of cognition issue. It's straight forward. If Biden wants to stop sending weapons, all he has to do is tell his Secretary of State "hey, stop sending weapons on account of the law says we can't" and it's done.
Cool. And in your little make believe world, there’s zero repercussions for doing that?
This is EXACTLY my point. You don’t know how it works.
Oh so you weren't talking about the actual process, but just vaguely pointing to various hypotheticals that might come of it? You moron.
They audacity to accuse someone of living in a make believe world while simultaneously thinking that ending decades-long trade agreements is easy.
And what’s up with the name calling man? Don’t you know that that’s taken as conceding the argument? You’re not going to give up this early, are you?
It's not a "decades-long trade agreement" to begin. Do you think it's NAFTA or something? Maintaining Israel's QME is written into law but very vaguely define, and the Leahy law can be invoked to stop all offensive weapons while still allowing defensive weapons - such as interceptor missiles - through. You're a complete midwit grasping at straws. You haven't outline a single concrete objection, you rely on vagueries to hide your ignorance.
See!?! It's just so simple everyone! A random person says so!
You have brought up exactly one concrete claim - that the arms relationship is a "decades-long trade agreement" - and it was embarrassingly wrong. I can see why you find the topic so complicated, you seem to not know the first thing about it.
The US Israel FTA (Free Trade Agreement) was began in 1985. 1985 to 2024 is how many years exactly?? And the weapons sent is a direct result of the 10 Year Memorandum wish is in addition to the FTA.
It wouldn’t have happened without it. And it’s pretty safe to assume that canceling one, cancels the other. Which again, illustrate my point- NUANCED and COMPLICATED
Lastly… The fact that you seem to be incapable of counting excuses you from this discussion.
I'll spell this out for you.
The US Israel FTA does not include military sales, which are regulated in separate treaties.
The 10 year memorandum is a memorandum (meaning non-binding) and only deals with financial assitance and missile defense - which I already mentioned. It can be cancelled at literally any time.
Neither agreement affects the other. You should Google a little more thoroughly. Or better yet, stop arguing about topics you don't understand.
This is the last time I'm responding to you. I get the impression you're just here to feed your ego.
This is not a constructive way to learn about topics you're unfamiliar.