If you said "Israel needs a regime change" I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who don't have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldn't be wrong. Because those are infringements on other people's territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But that's not the world we live in. Yes, Israel's government commits atrocities and that's bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who don't do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and don't have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
It's unfortunate that not everyone's basic rights are respected, and I'm all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But I'm not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldn't have been there in the first place.
And in case you're wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because they're people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I don't believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe it's entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that "only one may survive," then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there can't really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe I'm naïve. I'm just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
But you can fit 25 squares into the same space. This isn't efficiency, it's just wasted space and bad planning.
You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don't argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.
And just because you failed to understand something doesn't represent an inadequacy on the article's part.
It's quite demonstrable that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing over the decades, and that the increase is accelerating rather than slowing down.
Data that concrete can easily be extrapolated. "If we continue polluting at the current rate, the air will be unbreathable in X amount of years" is not a wild claim.
And changes in blood chemistry that are correlated with atmospheric CO2 level increases are a valid means of studying how much pollution humanity can tolerate before it has catastrophic effects.
You think the russian federation isn't a fascist and and ultra-capitalist oligarchy/kleptocracy?
Cause that's what you seem to be insinuating when you suggest that supporting NATO makes me a fascist...
The entire world-order (Yes, including the PRC and the BRICS bloc) is capitalist. I can be against capitalism, while also supporting the defense pact that enables Europe to maintain a unified front against russian imperialist aggression.
Because economies and political institutions, although deeply interconnected, are two different things. And russian fascism isn't any better than american fascism.
I also only really experience a full range of emotions while I'm dreaming. Waking up is always so depressing, even without the sudden reminder of how fucked up the real world is...
Political parties are based on commonalities of persuasion. Democratic Socialism is primarily a political persuasion, but there are some countries with Democratic Socialist parties, which are obviously based on the persuasion. It wasn't unclear, unless you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
Both of those things are different from a political system, though. Social Democracies can have multiple political parties of various persuasions, because Social Democracy itself isn't an individual party but a whole system within which various parties interact. There are social democratic parties, based on the goal of implementing policies that resemble how a social democracy would run.
The majority of Nordic countries are part of NATO. It's a nasty terrorist organization.
Fucking vatnik.
You pretend to be progressive, but fail to see true progressivism.
Oh, so I guess "true progressivism" is Lenin ordering the Bolsheviks to assassinate all the Soviet leadership and replace them with sycophantic puppets because... he lost an election to them?
Millions die due to capitalism every year
I never denied that, and I don't support capitalism.
I'm not sure why you're not bringing that up as well.
Way to flip the fucking script. I brought up the deaths under Lenin et al as a response to you failing to mention them while pointing out the supposed deaths Social Democracy is allegedly responsible for. I even acknowledged that some western countries have committed war crimes, but I guess you'll just breeze over anything that doesn't reinforce your predetermined narrative?
Also, do note that you're now defending capitalism.
I didn't do that, but believe it or not I can be against bolshevism and capitalism. Not everyone is trapped in your narrow, campist worldview.
He explained that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had effectively boxed in the Trump administration, taking the decision out of American hands.
I imagine that conversation went something like this:
"Yes, you are totally right — the bible does seem to suggest that starting a war in Persia would bring about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, who would no doubt reward you as a faithful servant while casting the anti-war hippies and pro-human-rights leftists into the lake of fire.
If you would like to explore this topic further, study a few examples, or if there is anything else you would like to discuss, let me know! ⚡🤖 beep boop"
On the contrary, you know what's an unverifiable and unfalsifiable non sequitur? Your apparent claim that a Democrat president would have invaded Iran.
Also, pointing out that Democratic presidents have continued wars started by their Republican predecessors is completely different from claiming that they would have unnecessarily began new wars if they had been in power at those times. Your point does not substantiate the claim you're trying to make.
Also, you're assuming I'm a liberal and that I haven't read leftist theory. I understand what tankies are talking about enough to engage with it critically, which is apparently more than they do.
The best of the Democratic Socialist countries are still ran by child murdering shitbags
Do you mean Social Democracy countries? Because Democratic Socialism is a political party or persuasion, not a political system in its own right. What country is exclusively Democratic Socialist?
There are countries that are Social Democracies, and most of them have some of the best human rights track records out of all modern nations.
But if you want to cherrypick the most egregious examples of western nations and lump every western nation in with them under some collective guilt, while ignoring the infractions, crimes, and atrocities of all the non-western and anti-western countries, then I suppose you could make the argument that Social Democracies are baby murderers. It wouldn't be a very good argument, but that just describes the layers of distortion you would have to put it through to reach that conclusion.
But keep blaming the Nordic model for the crimes of the US, I'm sure that strategy will convince somebody, just not me.
Oh and by the way, do you want to mention the millions of deaths under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Since apparently you're juxtaposing "true" leftism against all the inferior or "untrue" leftisms as some sort of harbinger of moral superiority and respect for human lives?
I was gonna say, "if there's no supply problem then why did you stop sending arms to Ukraine" but he already answered that by saying he views Ukrainian defense as less important than the US's war of aggression...
Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term
...before Biden was even president and sent arms to Ukraine in the first place? ...
My autistic ass can't comprehend why anyone would want to arrange a prime number in a square pattern...