7 ms·

>Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. >If

by kfprt 5y ago

>Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't. If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. >If you want to blow up Israelis As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world. >Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers. >It seems like you won't break character. I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'. >Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...

perl4ever 5y ago
>If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. >As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons. >I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible. >If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times. My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious. I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot. I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.
- kfprt 5y ago
  >But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. I had already written my reply and felt it more expedient. >you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century Of course it is not possible to right all old wrongs. I think we can agree in principle that the correct move on the US's part would have been to bomb Israeli military targets in 1967 though. I am far more concerned with the present. I think all lobbying on behalf of foreign powers should be subject to FARA, paid or unpaid, as long as there is a proven link to that foreign power. For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. The American people deserve to know who is working on behalf of foreign powers and may have interests that do not align with their own.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. I have read periodic stories in the news, sob stories about how hard it is to renounce US citizenship. Including via HN quite recently. My impression is that because the US tends to regard giving up citizenship as tax evasion, means that dual citizenship is a lot more common than in many countries who may not even allow it. So, practically speaking, I wonder if the change you want might arouse opposition among other people than the ones you want to target. Group 1 being people who are dual citizens with other countries than Israel, and their allies. Group 2 being any entity that doesn't want to incentivize people to give up US citizenship and stop paying taxes. Tactically, you might portray dual citizenship as being an Israeli/Jewish thing, but strategically it seems important to be clear on whether it's true. I don't know.
    - kfprt 5y ago
      >how hard it is to renounce US citizenship You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient. My ideal model is something like what exists on twitter and youtube where there is a disclaimer if the account belongs to media funded by a foreign government. They are allowed but there is disclosure. For example if there is a dual citizen arguing in the US for policies that would impact the country of their other citizenship I would like that to be disclosed as well. If for example an Israeli/US citizen is arguing on a US website for policies that would be beneficial to Israel then I would like it to be disclosed to me that they may be speaking in their capacity as an Israeli citizen and not an American one so I can understand their position more fully. Just like ads are disclosed so should lobbying be. Something like "As a citizen of X I may be arguing in that capacity". It should also be noted that if you write a blog post exposing say a fraud in Nikola Motors you are obliged to disclose your short position.
perl4ever 5y ago
>I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'. You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith". That's not the same as coming to a conclusion, which I try never to do unless I actually have to take action. I just can't come up with a consistent contextual framework. Yet. It would be interesting to me, if you said (which I believe you implied with the "intra-semitic" comment) you didn't care about the Palestinians, and in fact, you happened to have an Iranian perspective. I think somewhere I read that one possibility for where Jews came from originally could be the general vicinity of what is now Iran. Possibly meaning...not so semitic?
- kfprt 5y ago
  >You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith". If you're going to accuse me of something then I would prefer you just came right out and said what it is that you're accusing me of. No beating around the (burning?) bush. >you didn't care about the Palestinians It's not that I don't care, merely that as an American I see no benefit to intervening. To me the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is the same as the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi. I see them as more alike than different. As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts which is all the more reason to not intervene. As far as I am aware the Iranians are an indo european population group but this is an academic exercise not a political one. I would recommend the lectures given at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago if you would like to learn more. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCitjN1GDlEVcLz-fAy5VIpg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCitjN1GDlEVcLz-fAy5VIpg
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway. The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in. I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things. I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by. I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it. Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back. People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.

by kfprt 5y ago

perl4ever 5y ago

>If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free. I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. >As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons. >I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible. >If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times. My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious. I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot. I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.

kfprt 5y ago
>But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't. I had already written my reply and felt it more expedient. >you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century Of course it is not possible to right all old wrongs. I think we can agree in principle that the correct move on the US's part would have been to bomb Israeli military targets in 1967 though. I am far more concerned with the present. I think all lobbying on behalf of foreign powers should be subject to FARA, paid or unpaid, as long as there is a proven link to that foreign power. For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. The American people deserve to know who is working on behalf of foreign powers and may have interests that do not align with their own.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. I have read periodic stories in the news, sob stories about how hard it is to renounce US citizenship. Including via HN quite recently. My impression is that because the US tends to regard giving up citizenship as tax evasion, means that dual citizenship is a lot more common than in many countries who may not even allow it. So, practically speaking, I wonder if the change you want might arouse opposition among other people than the ones you want to target. Group 1 being people who are dual citizens with other countries than Israel, and their allies. Group 2 being any entity that doesn't want to incentivize people to give up US citizenship and stop paying taxes. Tactically, you might portray dual citizenship as being an Israeli/Jewish thing, but strategically it seems important to be clear on whether it's true. I don't know.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    >how hard it is to renounce US citizenship You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient. My ideal model is something like what exists on twitter and youtube where there is a disclaimer if the account belongs to media funded by a foreign government. They are allowed but there is disclosure. For example if there is a dual citizen arguing in the US for policies that would impact the country of their other citizenship I would like that to be disclosed as well. If for example an Israeli/US citizen is arguing on a US website for policies that would be beneficial to Israel then I would like it to be disclosed to me that they may be speaking in their capacity as an Israeli citizen and not an American one so I can understand their position more fully. Just like ads are disclosed so should lobbying be. Something like "As a citizen of X I may be arguing in that capacity". It should also be noted that if you write a blog post exposing say a fraud in Nikola Motors you are obliged to disclose your short position.

perl4ever 5y ago

>I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'. You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith". That's not the same as coming to a conclusion, which I try never to do unless I actually have to take action. I just can't come up with a consistent contextual framework. Yet. It would be interesting to me, if you said (which I believe you implied with the "intra-semitic" comment) you didn't care about the Palestinians, and in fact, you happened to have an Iranian perspective. I think somewhere I read that one possibility for where Jews came from originally could be the general vicinity of what is now Iran. Possibly meaning...not so semitic?

kfprt 5y ago
>You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith". If you're going to accuse me of something then I would prefer you just came right out and said what it is that you're accusing me of. No beating around the (burning?) bush. >you didn't care about the Palestinians It's not that I don't care, merely that as an American I see no benefit to intervening. To me the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is the same as the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi. I see them as more alike than different. As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts which is all the more reason to not intervene. As far as I am aware the Iranians are an indo european population group but this is an academic exercise not a political one. I would recommend the lectures given at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago if you would like to learn more. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCitjN1GDlEVcLz-fAy5VIpg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCitjN1GDlEVcLz-fAy5VIpg
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway. The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in. I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things. I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by. I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it. Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back. People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.