President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.
…and that is why we’ve handed billions upon billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the side actively committing a genocide, and why I’m putting out a statement condoning the political assassination of one of the people who we would theoretically be working with to create peace in the first place.
Death, and I cannot emphasize this enough, to America.
In the mouths of western politicians, the word “diplomacy” is synonymous with unconditional surrender. They would rather burn the world to the ground than accept that they can’t get all of their maximalist demands and engage in actual good faith negotiations with their adversaries, trying to work out a compromise.
IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren’t especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign, and it was more a way to test out their new toys. If the nukes hadn’t been used but conventional bombing had continued, it would likely have had a similar result. This video by Shaun lays out a pretty compelling case that the Japanese surrender was due to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.
This is all ignoring of course that despite the insistence of unconditional surrender, the Americans accepted surrender with conditions and allowed the emperor to continue to hold his titles anyway. There’s definitely something to be said about taking maximalist positions just to make a point even when they don’t actually care about several of the goals that make up those positions.
HEZBOLLAH destabilized the Middle East? A US Vice-President is saying this?
hezbollah never killed an american who wasn’t where they weren’t supposed to be
the idf has killed multiple americans in the west bank where they had a visa and permission from the country to be in
the idf has killed multiple americans in the west bank where they had a visa and permission from the country to be in
A lot of angry downvotes
My downvote wasn’t in anger. It’s more about the fact that this isn’t a news article which makes it questionably breaking the rules of this /c/. Combined with the headline being serious editorializing via broad generalization of what the statement is. Not saying it’s not true, just that it’s a unnecessarily sensational.
It’s a press release from the White House. Why would you need a journalist to stenograph it for it to become news?
And OP’s description is good, it helps cut through the typical liberal mealy-mouthed framings that are, otherwise, the only ones you would ever hear.
Why would you need a journalist to stenograph it for it to become news?
Because like Yogthos said, the only consumption liberals do comes pre-digested by the Jake Tappers, Rachel Maddows, and Wolf Blitzers of the world. It’d be funny in a disgusting way if these milquetoast know-nothing partisans didn’t have hands on the levers of the world.
To be honest i would trust Yogthos who has been posting news threads for years than some paid journalists that has an agenda to whatever news they report. It resembles the old forum era where if you hang around long enough, you can trust/trust a little some users.
I downvoted and I’m not angry. I just recognize that this post is intentionally inflammatory and trolling. As is common from OP.
Posting news in a news comm of a presidential speech that is literally a link to the official government website of that president is “intentionally inflammatory and trolling”? This is a joke, right? You’re doing a bit and playing a caricature of a typical lib clown?
It’s the title that is inflammatory and trolling. Do you really not understand that editorializing is a thing?
Why is it inflammatory? As a mod I’m genuinely surprised people are upset by this, it is a white house press statement with an editorialized title that summarizes the event quickly and without any commentary on it.
You said it in your reply. An editorialized title–an extremely editorialized title, which was clearly crafted specifically to garner outrage.
