Ghoma

12mo

If we’ll be replacing the current abusive, narcissistic government then…

YANDHI

12mo

Have you been around for any U.S. regime change war this century? When does it actually get replaced with something better?

YANDHI

12mo

Have you been around for any U.S. regime change war this century? When does it actually get replaced with something better?

SerbianoMatico

12mo

Regime change by external forces almost never works, you need it to be internal

Ghoma

12mo

It’s a lose-lose situation

Let the current regime stay? They’ll continue abusing, hogging money, restrict freedom to their citizens, and things will never progress

Change regime? There’s an opportunity for improvement in laws and freedom, however risk of instability skyrockets. Not to mention, what if the installed government ends up like the Shah? This one is more of a dice roll

Ghoma

12mo

It’s a lose-lose situation

Let the current regime stay? They’ll continue abusing, hogging money, restrict freedom to their citizens, and things will never progress

Change regime? There’s an opportunity for improvement in laws and freedom, however risk of instability skyrockets. Not to mention, what if the installed government ends up like the Shah? This one is more of a dice roll

YANDHI

12mo

What responsibility does the United States have to interfere with how another nation conducts itself within its borders? Unless there's clear signs of genocide which there aren't here, military interference and forceful change is inappropriate. And even if so, you'd need the UN Security Council to act on behalf of the "international community"

Nothing you mentioned has to do with the United States which is located far away in North America. Its not a loss to leave them alone and find other ways to engage effectively. Improving laws and freedom...on America's terms?

Willie Wildcat

12mo

These people are shameless

Ghoma

12mo

It’s a lose-lose situation

Let the current regime stay? They’ll continue abusing, hogging money, restrict freedom to their citizens, and things will never progress

Change regime? There’s an opportunity for improvement in laws and freedom, however risk of instability skyrockets. Not to mention, what if the installed government ends up like the Shah? This one is more of a dice roll

CRACKASTEPPAVEGAN

12mo

Reunite Dipset

Willie Wildcat

12mo

These people are shameless

Willie Wildcat

12mo

These people are shameless

Willie Wildcat

12mo

These people are shameless

CRACKASTEPPAVEGAN

12mo

Reunite Dipset

afterimage

12mo

I don’t think anyone can deny Zionist influence over American politics is quite large compared to other lobbies

To answer your first point, the bipartisan agreement extends to pretty much every US foreign policy issue, not just Israel. We can look at how both parties talk about their goals in the Pacific for example, and containing China. Both parties have now been forced to reckon with China being an economic threat, however the Democrats angle pushes toward talking about the “rules based order” and the post-WW2 liberal democracy structure being a threat, Xi being an authoritarian, while Republicans are much more concerned direct and will call out China as a economic and military threat without relying on any talks about liberal rules and norms, even though both parties are acutely aware of the unique position America was in to largely shape the global institutions in the post-WW2 setting.

When it’s implied bipartisan that doesn’t necessarily mean every single politician if polled is going to give the exact same answer or has the same motivations behind supporting Israel behind closed doors, but naturally establishment politicians are heavily encouraged to not stray from any policy that would hurt their chances of getting positive media coverage, hurt chances of re-election. the benefits of large donors, networking among other politicians which entails having to fall in-line with the status quo. So for some evangical hard-line conservatives, they may actually believe in the Biblical reasons for supporting the modern-nation state of Israel, while maybe some “progressive” candidates on the DNC line may not necessarily buy into the evangelical, holy land idea but they see a pragmatic, two-state solution as the best outcome for the Jewish diaspora post-Holocaust. These stem from two different perspectives ideologically but when it comes down to policy, it will still manifest in some fashion of continue support for Israel, including funding and the necessity of eradicating any “threats” to US hegemony/Israeli state interests in the region, which will entail going after other groups labeled as terrorists, like Hezbollah or Hamas, and of course “state sponsors” of terrorism like Iran and subsequently their alliances with Russia and China.

I don’t think it’s correct to say “naturally” just that to advance your career in US politics at that level, alongside the ideological influences that most Americans are starting from across the spectrum (Christian Evangelicalism, or “rules based democracy”) it will lead to how they craft their own policies. Either one ends up ultimately serving the interests of US imperialism which is the larger point.

For your second point, I’m not sure how broad you mean “perception of Israel” mainly because I don’t have enough polling data across a variety of sources to make an informed answer. I think overall most Americans still support Israel in the sense that they believe the Zionist state should still exist, whether that be a two-state solution, a one state solution with Israeli supremacy, or even Israeli expansion into further areas of the MENA (this is probably the smallest fraction tbf)

However I don’t think being anti-war or being against any current boots on the ground conflict can be coincided with being against Israel altogether. A lot of the anti-Zionist sentiment if I had to make an educated guess is still reduced to younger cohorts within the American electorate, probably an even smaller amount that may vote in a way that shows it (considering there is no true anti-Zionist establishment politician). and to the why? Well, regardless of how Americans feel about supporting foreign entities, they can largely agree the past several decades of American adventurism in foreign places combined with the economic decline of the first world relative to pre-1970s hasn’t increased the propserity of anyone at home. Being “anti-war” is a huge boom now when voting, seeing how every President (and especially Trump both times) ran on opposing the MENA wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were publicly broadcasted to the Americans in the following years as being “forever wars” with again, no immediate material benefit (the War on Terror being proceeded by a large global recession) (COVID economic slump proceeded by another US-led conflict in Ukraine)

However, to end I don’t think Americans being against war in practice (which tbf most civilians of any nation probably are) doesn’t mean they have a firm grasp on the conditions and policies that even enable the US to need constant warfare or maintain imperialist outposts around the globe in the first place. They can only articulate what the legacy media or more acutely, their direct experiences- which for most Americans have been just seeing images of far away lands, soldiers being sent off to die, trillions being greenlit time and time again by both parties- and a general decline in their own economic prosperity.

fun guy

12mo

Is this a trick question?

K DOG 99

12mo

My MAGA in laws were eating up the “nuclear weapon” narrative and potential terrorist attack because of Biden’s widen open boarders.