this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
142 points (76.3% liked)

World News

32063 readers
899 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rather than demand an immediate ceasefire, the Biden administration is actively working to further provide cover for Israeli atrocities in Gaza

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

We don't have an antiwar party anymore, that ended with Obama's first term. God forbid you don't vote for either of the war mongering parties though, then the US voters will tell you you're the problem.

[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We've never had an anti war party

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We used to have anti-war politicians that were just called democrats, now anti-war is progressive it keeps being pushed further outside of the political binary. Whatever we did have is being chipped away.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Oh? Which dems were anti war?

[–] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Ah yeah true

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

John Kerry is probably the most notable one, they even ran him as their presidential candidate in 04. Whens the last time you heard any democrat nearly as high up as a president candidate even talk about war in any capacity other than some 'support our troops' line.

[–] ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

What does that mean though, "anti-war party," "anti-war politician"?

Did your "anti-war party" stop being so because they'd ended the war we were in? And if so, wasn't that a good thing, for those with an "anti-war" outlook?

Back in the late 1930s, I'm pretty sure America's "anti-war party" was mostly isolationists and some Nazi sympathizers. It was FDR, one of the most progressive Democrats ever elected to the office, who led the country to war back then.

If your entire political belief system is based on avoiding war at all costs, you deny yourself any real-world context in exchange for that purist ideology.

Those who are anti-war above all else lose everything they have and everything they stand for, the first time someone (anyone!) else decides to threaten them with war. The first time that someone sneak-attacks their Pearl Harbor, or crashes planes into their Twin Towers, or whatever else.

Maybe war is like abortion (in this singularly metaphorical political sense). Nobody ever really wants it to happen, and most people do their best to try to avoid it for themselves and others. Yet sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, it ends up being the safest and healthiest way, sometimes the only way, out of an untenable situation not completely of our own making.

I'm not arguing that World War II was a "good" war and that W. Bush's Iraq was a "bad" war. That may comport with my personal beliefs, but my real point is that everyone has their own personal beliefs. Everyone has something that is most important to them.

If you say that war is never justified for any reason, then you are also saying that your call for pacifism is more important than whatever the reason for the war may be. Not just more important for you, but for everyone else too.

[–] sciawp@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Hot take but you’re right and you should say it. Being ‘anti-war’ is what has led to people to say that Ukraine should just give up and the US shouldn’t be aiding them in protecting themselves. Sometimes war is justified, though it should be minimized as much as possible

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Problem is usually wars are justified by money or lies or politics, not by things like "defending democracy" or "stopping a genocide"

Those justifications are usually made up at the time it becomes convenient or politically necessary to enter a war.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Too long, didn't read

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The 2,000 troops as "advisors" is hopefully a move to get Israel to tone down the war criming. Heaven knows they don't need any real help committing genocide, they've been practicing for decades.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

I can hear Vietnamese and Laotian people side-eying you from half-way around the planet.

[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Sorry to have missed it while posting, I've updated it now. Thanks for calling it out.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

US and genocide go together like lightning and thunder.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 11 months ago

I will not vote for genocide, no matter how hard Dems try to guilt trip me into voting blue.