this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2845 readers
14 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A goddamn big ol' lie that is. The U.S. would not be afraid to push the envelope against most other countries. The U.S. military is capable enough to singlehandedly wipe out all of Israel and Palestine more than 10 times over in conventional warfare if it were so desired. Not that this is desirable, and it would cost many lives of the innocent and young, but I'm just speaking that this power and capability can't really be hidden by pretending you can't do anything about it.
If there was any value as a world of nations we could get out of such exorbitant expenses, it would be to establish peace and stop the fighting on both sides, by various means and escalating degrees of force if they really were compelled to. And even if we leave threatening or flexing military might out of the question, the U.S. has so many strings they can attach to how they support Israel with funding and arms, is it not obvious to this administration?
Where the heck is the notion that the U.S. government's hands are tied coming from?
What would be so wrong with nuking Isreal? We give them 90 days to move and we render it uninhabitable. It's the same as when they cut the baby in half in the bible. If people are going to squabble over a worthless area of land because of its historical significance, then we have a duty to put a permanent stop to it.
Spicy take but I like it.
We have the tools even without nukes to raze land to the ground. Using a nuke might have the added bonus of "solve" climate change by making it a permanent nuclear winter.
At least part of the claim is that the president himself has little power. It's the stupid finger-pointing game. "Biden needs Congress' permission to do anything at all, ever." 🙄
A useful excuse when the president doesn't want to do anything. Falls flat on its face when he actually wants to bomb, shoot, or cage the shit out of any brown people, foreign or domestic.
As far as I understand the US political process, the President is allowed to do virtually anything so long as it doesn't step on the states' toes, but Congress has to pass funding and anything done by Executive Order can be done but can't stick beyond his or her tenure.
Yeah, pretty much. The president has enormous power, and that power is even greater outside the country's borders. Especially because of things like the "Authorization to Use Military Force" which gives him pretty much carte blanche to "fight terrorism" anytime and anywhere he likes.
There's also this general process by which the president historically just does what he wants, and the rest of the government shrugs its shoulders and rolls over, and thus his office essentially just has that de facto power, no matter what the constitution or other laws say: Renegade Cut: No More Presidents.
The U.S. president is more powerful than any empire in the world has ever been, is pretty much a king, and basically does what he wants. Liberals often make excuses about how his hands are tied. It would be great if that were the case, but it's really, really not.