@functor's banner p

functor


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 12 12:56:52 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2069

functor


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 12 12:56:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2069

Verified Email

It is fascinating that not more is done to fix an issue that undermines the confidence in the system.

Republicans should push hard for making IDs a free government service. Giving ID cards to people wouldn't be that expensive, and it would be hard for democrats to oppose a program that would help homeless people get a bank account and integrate into society. Not requiring voter ID is rather unique to the US and a hard position to defend when IDs are required for almost everything else in society.

As for stability having a more unified voting system that makes it harder to cheat would increase stability. Having a percentage of the population believe Bush/Trump/Biden stole the election is a destabalizing force.

The post-Saddam era has thawed those old hatreds, but referring to these nations as having "deep cultural ties" is quite the turn of phrase to use.

Depends on the parts you are talking about. The shia in Iraq hated Saddam and didn't want a war with Iran. Iraq is a highly diverse country, and Iran's ties to the different groups aren't uniform. There are groups that Iran has strong ties to and there are groups that Iran has strong hatred for.

Iran hates Iraq

Iran has good relations with Iraq's shia population and has offered Iraq both help with rebuilding and military aid. Iranians definitely don't get along with Baathist and the Sunnis, but there are strong ties to groups living near Iran. Parts of Iraq are ethnically similar to Iran and the current Iraqi government enjoys good relations with Iran. Regardless, when Iran's neighbour is attacked by an aggressive power that could very well invade Iran it makes sense for Iran to offer support.

there was a revolution. Which is where we are now, with an implacably hostile religious theocracy in charge as a result of our earlier "alliance" with them.

I wonder why the Iranians revolted against a corrupt foreign puppet who siphoned off natural resources to British petroleum. British petroleum was the most profitable British company in the beginning of the 1900s. Iran had been invaded in 1941 and then had a dictator installed in 1953. There was good reason for supporting revolution. Despite sanctions and despite living in a continuous state of semi war Iran has managed to create a stable state that produces few refugees.

You seem to have a thesis ("American imperialism is the root of all evil") to which you are attempting to fit every conflict in the world.

Americans have an exceptional ability to get involved in every corner of the planet. If there is a village in Afghanistan that isn't ruled by them, they will bomb it for 20+ years. The US is in a league of its own when it comes to starting wars and meddling in other countries. Not all problems are caused by the US but the US is a driving force behind instability.

And how do you think running Venezuela into the ground by sanctioning them will impact migrant flows? Migrants flee Venezuela because it is bad, so making it worse should lead to more migrants. Clearly, the US hasn't been able to topple Venezuela's government, and the US has made it worse in Venezuela. In other words, foreign meddling once again lead to a migrant crisis.

The US has a long history of backing coups in Latin America, funding militias and creating banana republics. This has made the region less stable and created more incentives for people to leave.

For example, what is Biden's policy towards Venezuela, a brutal dictatorship which is responsible for a large chunk of the U.S. border crisis,

When Ukraine is everything but democratic because they are in a state of war it is excused. Yet, those under threat from the US are supposed to be completely democratic despite America's long history of sponoring terrorist groups, assassinating leaders and trying to colour revolution countries. If Venezuela didn't hold a tight ship they would have ended up like Iraq, Syria, or Libya. Putting countries in a state of perpetual state of semi war in order to destabilize them increases migration. The US has sanctioned Venezuela, funded an armed coup attempt and continuously worked to undermine the country. As with most of America's foreign policy misadventures it ends up with a massive flood of migrants. The best way to stop the migrant flow is to stop the aggressive posturing. Stealing Venezuelan assets makes the situation in Venezuela worse which encourages emigration.

What about Biden's position on Iran, a country which funds terror throughout the world,

When Ukraine gets invaded we all have to help them. When Iraq gets invaded, Iran is supposedly supposed to just quietly accept it. Why would they? It is a neighbouring country with deep cultural ties to Iran. Of course they are going to help them defend themselves. Iran has given support to groups under direct military threat. Destablizing Iran would mean another giant refugee crisis. Iranians are the most similar people to westerners in that part of the world and if anything they should be our natural allies. Stealing their assets is not only immoral and absurd, it is directly damaging to Europe. When Hillary Clinton was sponsoring Jihadists in Syria which flooded Europe with migrants Iran was helping Syria stay together. We should thank Iran for their support against ISIS.

American policy has been aggressively attacking countries that aren't subservient to the United States and causing continuous blowback.

I am at the gymbro stage wondering if it is worth evolving further.

(as opposed to just wanting them out of Palestine so Israelis can settle there)

They are going somewhere. The best option is if they stay put. Moving millions of arabs around 300 km from the EU is a terrible idea.

Are not Israeli.

Imagine in a Han chinese lobby claimed they were not a Chinese lobby, just ethnic Han who love China.

The reason it is useful to have an outpost in the region is oil, and Iran.

Yet Chinese ships sail past Yemen without getting shot at and China buys middle eastern oil. They didn't have to invade any countries. Iran is in no way a threat and is if anything the group that has been the best at integrating in Europe. They even speak an indoeuropean language. Destabilizing Iran would be an absolute disaster. Our interest is a stable Iran with few migrants and stable exports.

We don't have national interests threatened in or next to Indonesia.

What national interests does the west have around Israel that Israel helps with? Israel provides no oil.

Well, Christians have it better in Israel than in most Arab countries.

Christians are being ethnically cleansed by Israel. Israel has backed jihadists in Syria that were wrecking Christian communities and Israel has had an anti-christian stance in the Armenia/Azerbadjan conflict.

and we cannot escape our interests in the region.

How has Israel promoted stable arab states that produce few migrants and like to do business with the west?

and assuming that Jews are all part of an orchestrated ZOG movement

No, black people overwhelmingly vote democrat. There is no conspiracy, no centralized control and there are individual black people who are right wing. Jews have been overrepresented in promoting their ethnic interest which is in stark contrast to our ethnic interest. When Jared Kushner talks about moving the population of Gaza to Europe that is promoting his ethnic interest against ours.

Israelis generally are not trying to get Western countries to open their borders.

Ben Gvir has been publically promoting ethnic cleansing in Palestine with the goal of bringing in migrants to the rest of the world. ADL and AIPAC have worked hard for open bordres for everyone except Israel along with the pro zionist donor class.

and geopolitically, a local boot to put on Arabs in the region is very useful.

How was the war in Iraq useful? The war in Libya was a terrible example of the west shooting itself in the foot. Afghanistan gave us heroin, migrants and two trillion dollars of debt. We haven't been putting a local boot on Indonesia, the largest muslim country and that hasn't created a problem for us. Israel has not benefited christians in the region, they have not benefited christian Palestinians and they have pushed millions of muslims into Lebanon that used to be more Christian and Greek. Israel is supporting Azerbaijan cleanse Armenians. Meanwhile, Israel has if anything opposed relatively secular nationalists in the middle east and backed islamists who fracture and weaken nearby arab states. This is the polar opposite interest of the rightwing voter.

The refugees generally come from the countries bombed by the US and Israel. Putting maximum pressure sanctions on middle eastern countries, bombing them and supporting groups that destabilize them make it far worse. AIPAC lobbies for war. The US and Israel bomb. IsraAID helps the migrants cross the mediteranean while ADL works to get those who oppose this banned. There is no reason why Syria has to be less stable than jordan or the Gulf states. The wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan have been destructive from a European perspective.

It is a PR nightmare because Israel is killing tens of thousands of people and engaging in an exceptionally brutal form of warefare with western backing. This goes against western tradition of rules of war and much of the non European world watches in horror.

The right's support of Israel never made sense. Israel has created a perpetual refugee crisis on Europe's border, it costs a fortune in foreign aid, and it is a PR nightmare. Meanwhile, ADL, AIPAC and every mainstream jewish groups work against the interests of social conservatism in western countries. Simping for the Israel lobby while the ADL wants to ban conservatives off Twitter is a one way relationship. Israel is oppressing Christians and has sponsored terrorist groups in Syria. Israel works to destabilize the region when the rest of us benefit from it being stable.

There is absolutely no reason to burn political capital defending some of the bloodiest and most brutal wars in recent history in the middle east. Israel can't really provide any tangible benefit to social conservatives in the west. Especially not when Ben Gvir who is Minister of National Security of Israel wants to relocate large numbers of Palestinians in the west.

Had Israel supported similar politics in the west as they promote in their own country, it could have worked. But "nationalism for me, open borders for thee", will upset the left in the west that doesn't like nationalism as well as the right in the west that doesn't like the "open borders for thee"-part.