cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601
“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”
Reads like a bloody Onion article.
No, I’m being downvoted because the majority of lemmy doesn’t understand how nuanced topics work. It’s all or nothing. “With us, or against us.”
It’s a hive mind mentality here.
With this in mind, it’s not a stretch to understand that one doesn’t need to know how things should be done to know how things shouldn’t be done.
Want an example? I don’t know the right way to safely jump out of an airplane is, but I know that doing it without a parachute is fucking stupid.
And this same logic is applied to the idea that it’s easy to just end treaties and agreements and assume there’d be no consequences. Those that have the power to end them- yeah… THEY know.
But I know, it’s SOOOOOO much easier to just fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit suits an argument than it is to actually look into it. I’ve looked into it. And as I r already mentioned- EXPERTS in the field have said it’s incredibly complicated
Lastly, I don’t give a shit about being downvoted. It’s an irrelevant and worthless carryover from Reddit that should never have happened.
This is a nice little rant, but there is nothing “complicated” about the Leahy law or the State Department discretion unless you’re literally a child or have some kind of cognition issue. It’s straight forward. If Biden wants to stop sending weapons, all he has to do is tell his Secretary of State “hey, stop sending weapons on account of the law says we can’t” and it’s done.
Cool. And in your little make believe world, there’s zero repercussions for doing that?
This is EXACTLY my point. You don’t know how it works.
Oh so you weren’t talking about the actual process, but just vaguely pointing to various hypotheticals that might come of it? You moron.
They audacity to accuse someone of living in a make believe world while simultaneously thinking that ending decades-long trade agreements is easy.
And what ship with the name calling man? Don’t you know that that’s taken as conceding the argument? You’re not going to give up this early, are you?
It’s not a “decades-long trade agreement” to begin. Do you think it’s NAFTA or something? Maintaining Israel’s QME is written into law but very vaguely define, and the Leahy law can be invoked to stop all offensive weapons while still allowing defensive weapons - such as interceptor missiles - through. You’re a complete midwit grasping at straws. You haven’t outline a single concrete objection, you rely on vagueries to hide your ignorance.
See!?! It’s just so simple everyone! A random person says so!