this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
320 points (81.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43984 readers
873 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But the goal is already kill every palestinian and they are 100% behind that goal, and sending so many bombs that the defense department is expressing concerns about it effecting US readiness for other conflicts. So materially they are already approaching their limit to how many Palestinians they can kill in a given time frame. And even if they werent you cant really kill more than 100% of the Palestinians anyway.

Plus you could argue that it being a democrat doing it makes it easier for them to pull this off. Trump would be a lot less effective at international diplomacy in general and a big part of what America is doing for Israel is stopping other nations from intervening.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It only results in 100% of the Palestinians dying on the assumption that there is enough time to do that. The longer it takes them, the more Palestinians are still alive if and when it is stopped.

So materially they are already approaching their limit to how many Palestinians they can kill in a given time frame

Trump wants to stop supporting Ukraine. That frees up a huge amount of resources that could be sent to Israel without changing the total balance compared to today at all.

Trump would be a lot less effective at international diplomacy in general and a big part of what America is doing for Israel is stopping other nations from intervening.

America doesn't stop other countries from intervening by deft diplomacy, it does it by military power. Trump is perfectly capable (and fond) of threatening countries with the American military.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So trying to break this down. All ive heard from you so far thats materially possible is, Trump may divert Ukraine aid to Israel instead. But thats already happening. Thats why Ukraine has been freaking out lately and why aid to Ukraine is steadily decreasing. Its being diverted to Israel instead. Trump may say it out loud but Biden is already doing it.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm quite comfortable saying that the ~$4 billion a month that the US sent to Ukraine in this summer would be enough to be meaningfully harmful if redirected towards Israel

If your theory that America is currently bombing Palestine in secret is wrong, then it can actually start. The navy parked offshore can start doing bombardments, they're not doing a lot right now. America can decide to substantially increase military spending to increase production for Israel; as a proportion of GDP, spending hasn't changed significantly despite the war in Ukraine and what Israel is doing. Fuck it, maybe it's boots on the ground. Wouldn't exactly be the first American adventure in western Asia. I do not for a second think that America's ability to blow people up is currently stretched to breaking point.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This isnt about being stretched to a breaking point. America has an empire to maintain. It cant do more than it already is in Gaza without putting its empire at risk. Thats what the internal reports show. Yes America could move all kinda of resources to bear but if it does so then it leaves itself defencless elswhere. This is just a material reality. Carrier strike groups if engaged in the genocide would need to return to port for refit more frequently and would require more to be dedicated to the region for example.

So no matter what rhetoric Trump might use if he wins and gets in he cant just magically create more aircraft carriers. or more planes, or more bombs. He can divert resources but it isnt gonna do anything but amount to a strategic blunder by the global US Empire. And allow other nations to breathe more freely and perhaps even step in to help Palestine. If the ships monitoring Iran go try to bomb Palestine Iran can turn around and put more pressure on Israel for example.

The current American stance is the most effective genocide machine they could come up with while not risking their empire crumbling. Its already in 100% genocide mode.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don't think a Trump administration would ditch America's position in Europe if that was what was needed to do what he wanted to do? In light of how he acted throughout 2016-2020?

We've already seen in the Red Sea that America is quite capable of using its naval and aerial assets without shifting the budget. They aren't magically crushing the Houthis because yeah, of course bombarding people from offshore doesn't make them want to fight you less, but I sure as fuck don't want to see what America is doing to Yemen also done to Palestine on top of what's already being done to it. Especially since Palestine is far denser with civilians.

And, of course, they absolutely could just spend more. That would not be even slightly unprecedented. The budget is currently close to the smallest as a percentage of GDP that it has been since before 2001.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Spending more doesnt create more resources magically. Money only goes so far. Also this isnt just about Europe its not even mainly about europe. Its mostly in relation to the pacific. The US is gearing up to fight China it cant afford to divert resources. Doesnt really matter what Trump wants to do. The reality is that theyre already doing everything they can afford to. Trumps just a dumbass more than likely he would fuck it up and end up helping Gaza accidentally lol.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

Alright, look, I appreciate the back and forth but I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. We do both, at the very least, agree that minimising Palestinian deaths is the goal. I'm not persuaded by your analysis of much of this, and you're not persuaded by mine. Hopefully things go the way that whichever one of us is right wants