I can't disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
I do want to know what exactly Biden has genocided. The two groups in this world who are driving genocides are Putin's and Netanyahu's regimes. Biden has no control over them, and the only group that could enact a foreign policy to do anything here in the US is Congress. So if anyone is complicit in that, it's our "Currently Genocidal by Inaction Congress."
I get it though, doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.
[Edit: a poster below pointed out that my joke was bad and I should feel bad. ]
Camilla was a poor choice at vp no matter how you swing it given the current progressive opinion on police.
Hertsog’s regimes.
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Current president of Israel
First of all, his name is Herzog. Secondly, it isn't his regime because he is only nominally in charge due to the president of Israel having limited powers.
Are you under the impression that Israel's president is like the U.S. president?
Israel has a parliamentary system. The prime minister has supreme executive power. The prime minister of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu.
That's actually sorta that joke, the US president is roughly as capable of commiting genocide as the president of Israel.
As for misspelling his name... Thanks Google? I'll fix it.
Which the joke was probably not well delivered as it would probably have flown over that other guys head anyway...
Then it's not a good joke since the U.S. president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, meaning that a U.S. president could absolutely commit genocide. And has done so many times with indigenous Americans.
The last one also caused a huge number of "excess deaths" as well...
Only with clearance from Congress though. I actually did not realize that Israel's president did not serve as cic.
Only with clearance from Congress though.
Absolutely not true. Only for prolonged conflicts... which congress will almost definitely approve of by the time that happens because the military will already be too embedded.
And even the limits on the War Powers Resolution have only been in place since 1973.
I see, so essentially they would state that it was in defense of the United States because it is was onshore and is there's nothing Congress could do about it.
That's actually really horrifying if someone like trump takes the presidency given his current threats...
Biden has no control
He could stop sending a new shipment of the very weapons used to commit genocide with every day and a half.
It might not stop it immediately, but it would at least make it more difficult for Netanyahu's fascist apartheid regime to keep blowing the shit out of innocent civilians if they have to look elsewhere for the bombs to do so with.
Plus, there's hardly any way to be more clearly an accomplice to war crimes than insisting on sending weapons to be used to commit war crimes regardless of congressional approval.
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
I don't find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven't already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel's government.
Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let's not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we're have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it's logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden "going around Congress". This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I've never looked this deeply into this before so I'm learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep...)
You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I've seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.
First of all, no he isn't. In fact, it's illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there's not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they've already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there's literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that's not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.
His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.
There's no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He's trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it's best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway... Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I'll read your next message bit I probably won't have time to reply.
This is getting circular and I have better things to do with my day. Let's just agree to disagree.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You've made some really good points. I think he's made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
there’s literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict
I dunno about that - Democrats are not "the same" as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still...), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so... instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there's a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
I can’t disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
There's a whale of a lot of wisdom and experience younger, less experienced folks can learn from those "dinosaurs".
Sure, but there is also a lot of updated knowledge those dinosaurs could lean from the "less experienced" folks.
Especially when it comes from science, sociology, technology, and plenty more.
That might work if it weren’t for the fact that Biden bypassed congress twice to sell Israel weapons.
Until he completely stops sending them weapons and vetoing UN resolutions then he is just as guilty as the people dropping the bombs
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
Article 5 is the one that got invoked by the Hamas attack
As stated in another thread, at this point Biden has done enough to cover against any legal retaliation however, and 100% command a withdrawal of US support as Israel has actually been using the supplies to commit war crimes
Israel is not a member of nato, and article 5 only applies in Europe and North America.
You might want to reread that
Ah you are correct. They are a non-nato ally as they are out of geographical scope.
From what I can tell, that just makes it easier to sell them weapons, not necessary. Feel free to correct me though
That's only a subsection of our obligations. Two paragraphs up are what I was actually talking about. We have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them which essentially boils down to an attack on me must me treated as an attack on you.
Ok. I see multiple treaties there.
So as the person making the claim that we have to send them weapons, I am going to ask you to find exactly where it says we must help them.
You made the claim, you should be able to post why instead of just a link to every treaty we have going right now.
The ways to remedy a bilateral defense agreement depending on the actual agreement (I'm having trouble finding any of the us-isreal ones... So I'm just making assumptions here) usually boil down to supplying military aid or providing military defense.
Essentially the us must deploy supplies or a defense force. I'll keep digging for the actual text of one of these treaties but it might take a bit because the US state departments site is actually just really badly organized.
I can't disagree with the age argument, these dinosaurs need to step aside and let the world change.
I do want to know what exactly Biden has genocided. The two groups in this world who are driving genocides are Putin's and Netanyahu's regimes. Biden has no control over them, and the only group that could enact a foreign policy to do anything here in the US is Congress. So if anyone is complicit in that, it's our "Currently Genocidal by Inaction Congress."
I get it though, doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.
[Edit: a poster below pointed out that my joke was bad and I should feel bad. ]
Camilla was a poor choice at vp no matter how you swing it given the current progressive opinion on police.
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Current president of Israel
First of all, his name is Herzog. Secondly, it isn't his regime because he is only nominally in charge due to the president of Israel having limited powers.
Are you under the impression that Israel's president is like the U.S. president?
Israel has a parliamentary system. The prime minister has supreme executive power. The prime minister of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu.
That's actually sorta that joke, the US president is roughly as capable of commiting genocide as the president of Israel.
As for misspelling his name... Thanks Google? I'll fix it.
Which the joke was probably not well delivered as it would probably have flown over that other guys head anyway...
Then it's not a good joke since the U.S. president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, meaning that a U.S. president could absolutely commit genocide. And has done so many times with indigenous Americans.
The last one also caused a huge number of "excess deaths" as well...
Only with clearance from Congress though. I actually did not realize that Israel's president did not serve as cic.
Absolutely not true. Only for prolonged conflicts... which congress will almost definitely approve of by the time that happens because the military will already be too embedded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
And even the limits on the War Powers Resolution have only been in place since 1973.
I see, so essentially they would state that it was in defense of the United States because it is was onshore and is there's nothing Congress could do about it.
That's actually really horrifying if someone like trump takes the presidency given his current threats...
He could stop sending a new shipment of the very weapons used to commit genocide with every day and a half.
It might not stop it immediately, but it would at least make it more difficult for Netanyahu's fascist apartheid regime to keep blowing the shit out of innocent civilians if they have to look elsewhere for the bombs to do so with.
Plus, there's hardly any way to be more clearly an accomplice to war crimes than insisting on sending weapons to be used to commit war crimes regardless of congressional approval.
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
I don't find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven't already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel's government. Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let's not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.
Summary of our obligations from the state department https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we're have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it's logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden "going around Congress". This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I've never looked this deeply into this before so I'm learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep...)
You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I've seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.
First of all, no he isn't. In fact, it's illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there's not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they've already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there's literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that's not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.
His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.
There's no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He's trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it's best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway... Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I'll read your next message bit I probably won't have time to reply.
This is getting circular and I have better things to do with my day. Let's just agree to disagree.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You've made some really good points. I think he's made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
I dunno about that - Democrats are not "the same" as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still...), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so... instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there's a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
There's a whale of a lot of wisdom and experience younger, less experienced folks can learn from those "dinosaurs".
Sure, but there is also a lot of updated knowledge those dinosaurs could lean from the "less experienced" folks.
Especially when it comes from science, sociology, technology, and plenty more.
That might work if it weren’t for the fact that Biden bypassed congress twice to sell Israel weapons.
Until he completely stops sending them weapons and vetoing UN resolutions then he is just as guilty as the people dropping the bombs
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
Can you show me the treaty and what it specifies?
It's the NATO agreement. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
Article 5 is the one that got invoked by the Hamas attack
As stated in another thread, at this point Biden has done enough to cover against any legal retaliation however, and 100% command a withdrawal of US support as Israel has actually been using the supplies to commit war crimes
Israel is not a member of nato, and article 5 only applies in Europe and North America.
You might want to reread that
Ah you are correct. They are a non-nato ally as they are out of geographical scope.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/#:~:text=Israel%20has%20been%20designated%20as,relationship%20with%20the%20United%20States.
This world be applicable though.
From what I can tell, that just makes it easier to sell them weapons, not necessary. Feel free to correct me though
That's only a subsection of our obligations. Two paragraphs up are what I was actually talking about. We have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them which essentially boils down to an attack on me must me treated as an attack on you.
Ok. I see multiple treaties there.
So as the person making the claim that we have to send them weapons, I am going to ask you to find exactly where it says we must help them.
You made the claim, you should be able to post why instead of just a link to every treaty we have going right now.
The ways to remedy a bilateral defense agreement depending on the actual agreement (I'm having trouble finding any of the us-isreal ones... So I'm just making assumptions here) usually boil down to supplying military aid or providing military defense.
Essentially the us must deploy supplies or a defense force. I'll keep digging for the actual text of one of these treaties but it might take a bit because the US state departments site is actually just really badly organized.