• Rentlar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?

    • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Rentlar@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Where the heck is the notion that the U.S. government’s hands are tied coming from?

      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.

      • Rentlar@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.