You win the election and then don't do shit because that is the best way to make sure you win the next election.
Because the system is broken,
WHICH IS WHAT ILHAN OMAR IS COMPLAINING ABOUT.
Fuck me.
Indeed. Like, the clearest example if this is part of what started this while commotion over representative Omar to begin with, the Israel-Palestine conflict and if we're handling it properly or if we should be changing up the approach and doing more to help.
Currently each time Democrats obtain power they don't do much to stick up for Palestinian lives and pushback on the aggression and terrible policies of the Israeli government. And surprise, that doesn't lead to much incentive for Israel to change after we just give them more and more money is military contracts and relentlessly defend them in the UN.
Because we only focus in winning, as soon as we do win, we immediately switch gears to trying to make sure we win next time. From the day people are sworn in, they're only worried about the next election.
And that's exactly the broken system that she's talking about. Focus on winning no matter what, and then once you do win, do nothing because there will always be another election coming up you can use the same logic for. And the inaction against the tragedies going in everyday in Palestine are among the clearest cut examples.
That being the case, unless people are indeed fine or just flat-out don't care about that kind of broken status-quo, maybe a change is in order and we should do something about that to avoid falling into the same mental trappings all over again? The approach is broken and needs to change, and there will never be a "convenient" time to do do, so we might as well do it now, unless we don't really want to see that happen and do indeed want to continue on the same course.
No, because we can apply pressure economically and should be doing so in order to push them to change their policies. We do have a unique relationship with the country and we should be using that to help alter their behavior. Are you seriously arguing that the US should do this?
Yeah, nah, can't let you off the hook for this one, Kirblar. You were the one makin' the argument that killing civilians in the Korean war, while terrible, was nonetheless justified because of what those terrible North Koreans were up to, which apparently must be stopped at all costs, even if that involved the loss of such civilian lives. Follow that logic through and don't get cold feet now, as that was your logic, and no one else's. Either there are things that justify the loss of civilian lives for the "greater good" or there are no such things. And if you want to apply that logic to the circumstances such as the civilian deaths in the Korean War, certainly it could just as easily be applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Especially with non-stop war crimes by Israel in the West Bank/Gaza Strip, attacking civilians/children/reporters/doctors, illegal settlements, treating Palestine as an apartheid state where at the same time it's not actually Israeli land as such and so they don't have to give Palestinians the same rights as other Israelis since it's not technically Israel, but yet at the same time it apparently totally is Israel and thus they can build as many settlements there as they want, control Palestinians access to water and the sea and their airspace, etc, and just not giving a fuck about any of it and just continuing to do it day after day no matter how many reports the UN releases on it, because they know none of that's what matter and they can keep getting away with because nobody truly wants to even get involved in that conflict at this point and tell them "No."
Those seem like pretty evil intentions to me! The exact same type of "evil intentions" you were using to justify the tragic, yet apparently necessary death of civilians in Korea to achieve a larger objective because of how even more horrible sitting back and doing nothing in that conflict would be and how that would be even worse for everyone involved especially "knowing what we know about [about the DPRK]." If that's the case, surely that logic could just as easily be applied to protect the interests of Palestine, especially knowing how many Palestinians and civilians Israel kills so often. The same case could easily, easily be made to justify a flat-out war against Israel if need be, because to do nothing, to just resign ourselves to the deaths of all those Palestinians and civilians would be so much worse, especially knowing what we know today about Israel's illegal settlements and the policies of the Israeli governments and years after years of UN reports and mountains of evidence regarding the government of Israel's war crimes.
So pick one. Either that goes for both, that the terrible intentions and loss of civilian lives regardless and degradation of quality of life can be used to justify those actions in both circumstances, or their justified in neither and are never the right course of action, even if that does indeed lead to a lower quality of life for everyone down the life regardless. You don't get to be wishy-washy about this. Either civilian loss of life can be tragically justified to serve some greater objective, to avoid even greater losses down the line, which can easily be applied to both situations, or that applies to neither. You certainly don't get to have it both ways though, where that was somehow an unavoidable evil in Korea and something that had to be done, while somehow not being just as much justification for a hypothetical conflict against Israel to protect Palestinian lives and interests, using the exact same logic.
Pick one, and be consistent about it, but certainly don't jump around with "these civilians were tragically justified deaths, but not these other ones." Either they can potentially be justified in any situation, or they can't ever be justified, no matter what the excuse or cover story or attempted justification.
As remember Kirblar, you were the one, YOU WERE THE ONE who brought up arguments like "would you rather the entire Korean peninsula be ruled by Kim Jong Un today" to justify the events that happened and started this particular conversation--those are your words, that you uttered to justify this train of thought, not me or anyone else, but you. Turning that around, I could just as easily ask, "would you rather the entirety of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank continue to be apartheid states ruled inhumanely by tyrants like Benjamin Netanyahu/would you rather Palestine just be entirely absorbed by the Israeli state via decades of illegal settlements until there's nothing left"/etc. If that "would you rather the Korean Peninsula be unified under Pyongyang works to justify the tragic events that happened there, you can't suddenly back out and suddenly claim the same exact logic can't or shouldn't be used to justify a hypothetical conflict against Israel on the same exact type of grounds. You don't get to have it both ways like that. Either that goes for both, or neither. Either those kind of actions can be justified in those type of ways, or they can't, no matter what. Anything else is just pure hypocrisy at best and an absolutely brazen display of considering certain lives more equal and more worthy of defending in a way that certain other lives aren't and never will be and aren't ever going to be worth the same considerations and luxuries as those other lives at worst.
