4 ms·

>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

>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
      >You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient. How do you define efficiency? If you expand the definition of a foreign agent under FARA dramatically, then wouldn't it probably mean expanding the bureaucracy a lot too? But then, since most of them aren't agents of the foreign government, they would probably be much more likely to renounce citizenship. Efficiency by some standards would be hindered by going to a lot of expense to decrease tax revenue. Do you want people with dual US/Israeli citizenship to register under a revised FARA, or do you want them to choose between the two? It's kind of like taxing cigarettes, do you want to reduce smoking, or fund things with the tax money? Also, do you have any statistics on the proportions of dual citizens by country? As I said, it's a practical problem if you want to target Israel and the policy you want wouldn't in fact do so. But I don't know. Ostensibly, I think for security clearances, they already take dual citizenship into account. So the conventional wisdom appears to be that is enough.

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
    >You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient. How do you define efficiency? If you expand the definition of a foreign agent under FARA dramatically, then wouldn't it probably mean expanding the bureaucracy a lot too? But then, since most of them aren't agents of the foreign government, they would probably be much more likely to renounce citizenship. Efficiency by some standards would be hindered by going to a lot of expense to decrease tax revenue. Do you want people with dual US/Israeli citizenship to register under a revised FARA, or do you want them to choose between the two? It's kind of like taxing cigarettes, do you want to reduce smoking, or fund things with the tax money? Also, do you have any statistics on the proportions of dual citizens by country? As I said, it's a practical problem if you want to target Israel and the policy you want wouldn't in fact do so. But I don't know. Ostensibly, I think for security clearances, they already take dual citizenship into account. So the conventional wisdom appears to be that is enough.