davel

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago (6 children)

AOC voted against an amendment to the bill for removing the sending of arms to Israel. That’s a fact in the public record.

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/house-amendment/55

An amendment numbered 114 printed in Part A of House Report 119-199 to strike funding for the Israeli Cooperative Programs.

Roll Call 207 | Bill Number: H. R. 4016: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025207

Amendment Author: Greene of Georgia Part A Amendment No. 114

AOC voted nay. Only six voted yea: Al Green (D), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), Summer Lee (D), Thomas Massie (R), Ilhan Omar (D), and, Rashida Tlaib (D).

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The bill removed “offensive” weapons, but left in “defensive” weapons. The distinction is meaningless; defensive weapon systems allow Israel to continue to prosecute it’s genocide without other countries (notably Iran) being able to act against them, so it still enables genocide.

Agreed.

If she votes against the bill: AOC opposes cutting military aid to Israel!

If she votes for the bill: AOC voted to keep sending weapons to Israel!

No. There were two distinct votes at play here.

The first vote, for which she voted nay, was to amend the bill, removing the sending of weapons to Israel.
The last vote, for which she voted nay, was to pass the bill itself.

At issue here is the first vote only.

This yearly military budget bill always gets passed, without exception, which AOC knows. She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote. That being the case, why did she vote against removing military aid to Israel?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (12 children)

The thing is that your asking tankies to be pragmatic about policy.

This “pragmatism” is how we got here in the first place.

Its easy for the .ml types to cry and wait for a perfect policy or candidate.

We’re not looking for a perfect candidate under bourgeois democracy, because we know it will never happen. Previously:

The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

BlueAnonsense.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What do you think Israel would do if iron dome was taken away?

I don’t have a crystal ball, but they might reconsider what they’re currently doing if they were less invincible.

It would be like cornering an angry dog.

Israel has had the “dog” cornered for generations. Before that the “dog” was living its life, unperturbed by settler-colonial invaders.

And how does one single vote on an amendment that lost by somewhere around 400 votes make the difference?

This is a dodge. You still haven’t answered the question. Why did she vote against an amendment for not arming Israel?

Do you think about any of this with your mind or do you just react on impulse and emotion like an animal?

Yes, I am a hysterical genocide condemner and you are a rational genocide apologizer.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

The “mass murder” didn’t come from the Chinese state; it came from the CIA-backed terrorists. Like any state, the Chinese state has a duty to stop terrorist attacks.

📺 The Tiananmen Square "Massacre" Never Happened[Sources]

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

What does the “defensive” Iron Dome do? It helps Palestinian genocide and illegal, unprovoked attacks on Iran to continue unimpeded. Israel does not have the right to defend itself while committing these acts.

 

And of course fascist billionaire Palmer Luckey intends to name it after another Tolkien creation, Erebor.

Luckey and Lonsdale — who were big donors to Donald Trump in the 2024 US presidential election — want the bank to take over the niche once occupied by SVB as the go-to lender for riskier companies and cryptocurrency players that traditional banks might reject.

Erebor has applied for a national bank charter in the US, a licence that allows a financial institution to operate as a bank…

Its target market would be businesses that were part of the US “innovation economy”, in particular tech companies focused on virtual currencies, artificial intelligence, defence and manufacturing, the filing said. It would also serve individuals who work for or invest in these companies.

It also planned to work with non-US companies “seeking access to the US banking system”….

Erebor said in the filing it would “differentiate itself” by working with customers that “are not well served by traditional or disruptive financial institutions, in particular with respect to insufficient access to credit”.

Cryptocurrencies known as “stablecoins”, which are pegged to real-life assets such as the dollar, are expected to be a significant part of the bank’s operations. The application states Erebor aims to be “the most regulated entity conducting and facilitating stablecoin transactions”.

Yeah they’re going to be the most regulated: their goal is regulatory capture of bank cryptocurrencies.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many red flags before.

33
RFC 2119, the audiobook (soundcloud.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by davel@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
 


Best I can do is minimum wage for grueling, dangerous work.

 

The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia has been driven by internal and external factors. Those factors constitute two blades of a scissors, and explaining the conflict requires taking account of both blades. The external factors center on post-Cold War U.S. geopolitical strategy and the concomitant U.S.-sponsored eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That expansion can only be understood by reference to the fractures (internal factors) created by the Soviet Union’s disintegration. The external factors reveal the role of the United States, which is implicated to the point of provoking the conflict and obstructing peace.

The external and internal factors come into play at different moments and take time to work their full effect, which is why history is so important to understanding the conflict. The two sets of factors play out over a timeline involving three key events. The first is Ukraine’s declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in August 1991. The second is the Maidan coup in February 2014 that overthrew democratically elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, who advocated Ukrainian autonomy and a nonaligned defense policy. The third is Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022. This timeline is dramatically revealing. The United States and its NATO allies view the conflict as beginning in February 2022 (though sometimes saying it began when Russia first “invaded” Ukraine with the annexation of Crimea in 2014—an event following the coup), enabling them to ignore history. Russia views the conflict, more straightforwardly, as beginning with the February 2014 coup, which makes history and the onset of Civil War in Ukraine central to its political position. That fundamental difference in understanding hinders the possibility of a negotiated political settlement, and it is very hard to see how the difference can be reconciled, as accounting for history (namely the coup and the subsequent Civil War) yields a completely different narrative.

The U.S./NATO denial of history and penchant for explaining the conflict as simply an outgrowth of the February 2022 Russian “invasion,” confers a significant advantage in the accompanying propaganda war. Having the conflict begin with Russia’s military intervention is a simple, easily understood narrative. The Western public has little knowledge of or interest in history; this is especially true in the United States on the other side of the Atlantic, which is completely isolated from the conflict. Nor is Western media interested in history, which is difficult to explain and a commercial dud given a disinterested public. That configuration helps explain the resilience in the West of the U.S./NATO narrative. However, whereas denial of history works well for propaganda, it does not serve the cause of either truth or peace, as it denies the causes of the conflict which must be addressed if peace is to prevail.

Understanding the Ukraine Conflict: Internal and External Drivers

The Western U.S./NATO account of the conflict is history-light. The little bit of history that has managed to surface acknowledges, and then dismisses, NATO’s post-1990 eastward expansion. A proper historical understanding begins with the breakup of the Soviet Union. That breakup is recounted by Vladislav Zubok in his book Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union. The collapse is critical because it created the terrain for conflict.

As noted above, the conflict can be understood via the metaphor of a scissors. One blade is the internal, conflict-prone environment created by the Soviet Union’s breakup. The other blade is the continuing intervention by the United States, including the external eastward expansion of NATO. Both blades are necessary for understanding the causes of the conflict, its gradual escalation, and its political intractability.

[…]

 

Relevant rant:
📺 Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed
Democrats would rather lose to a Republican, to a conservative, to a fascist, to Trump, than address the material conditions of the American people.

 

Today I’m talking to Joti Brar, one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the editor of the party’s publication, and the Spokesperson for the World Anti-Imerialist Platform.

Joti Brar of CPGB-ML is the daughter of the late Harpal Brar.

“Neutrality Studies” is some Swiss nonsense, but at least they’ll listen to communists and anti-imperialists.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power?

 

Despite the arduous efforts of Israeli censors to hide the devastation Iran inflicted on Israel with its barrage of ballistic missiles during the 12-Day War, information is emerging that destroys the myth that Israel had an impregnable air defense. The map at the head of this article reveals the sites targeted by Iran. Based on the videos of strikes in Haifa and Tel Aviv, I think this map accurately portrays the massive scale of the Iranian attack. For the first time in its history, Israel took a major beating.

view more: ‹ prev next ›