9 ms·

> tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the p

> tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material to discussions involving claims of fact. The claim Biden is preventing deaths in Gaza while sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against the will of his own voters, would require stronger evidence than has been provided. Also, international law, including the Genocide Convention, is binding on all signatory states. 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in genocide. However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring international law for the moment: a) it's not at all clear that that would work We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade restrictions, etc. b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions three times, against the will of basically the entire planet. What about the realpolitik of that loss in our global standing? c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year. Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above that most people don't care, polls in fact show that significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms) than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0]. > "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from the left, right and center." 0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-campus-protests-hurting-biden-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-...

ronjobber 2y ago
The 'political repercussions' case is pretty flimsy [0]. Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, as alluded to above. More facts are not going to change that. An example... "'Realpolitik' is not a defense complicity in genocide." Says who? I mean I agree with you on the face of things, but who gets to decide what genocide means? And what does it mean for international law to be "binding on all signatory states"? Some view overconfidence in this notion as Wilson's great and lasting mistake. Unfortunately, there is no compiler that can adjudicate these types of questions for us. 0 - https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-represen...
- _3u10 2y ago
  Realpolitik is a defense. The ICC issues a verdict that your committing war crimes, and are to be put to death. Your 10 carrier strike group, says you aren't, therefore you are not put to death. Proving that the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them. If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much. > the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious. Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law. ... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
    - _3u10 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - runarberg 2y ago
        You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.

ronjobber 2y ago

The 'political repercussions' case is pretty flimsy [0]. Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, as alluded to above. More facts are not going to change that. An example... "'Realpolitik' is not a defense complicity in genocide." Says who? I mean I agree with you on the face of things, but who gets to decide what genocide means? And what does it mean for international law to be "binding on all signatory states"? Some view overconfidence in this notion as Wilson's great and lasting mistake. Unfortunately, there is no compiler that can adjudicate these types of questions for us. 0 - https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-represen...

_3u10 2y ago
Realpolitik is a defense. The ICC issues a verdict that your committing war crimes, and are to be put to death. Your 10 carrier strike group, says you aren't, therefore you are not put to death. Proving that the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them. If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much. > the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious. Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law. ... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - runarberg 2y ago
      You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.