This. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

You want to ask her questions like that at a rally, town hall style meeting, debate, media interview or some other place where she is the centerpiece? Fine.

That was clearly not the venue to answer that question. She handled it fine imo.

I agree that our foreign policy has been largely homogenous since roughly the end of WW2, under presidents of both parties, and that presidents once in office have become almost uniformly more hawkish/interventionist/imperialist after they are elected and throughout their term(s) even in cases (like Obama) where at least on the surface they are ideologically and temperamentally inclined to go a different direction. What conclusion to draw from that I am not remotely sure, because there are a number of possible explanations but none of them in a vacuum seem adequate or sufficient to explain it by themselves.

I tend to think it is some combination of at least

1. There is an underlying military industrial infrastructure that cares deeply about maintaining the status quo on foreign policy and exerts a great deal of influence over it
2. All of the major decision makers who go this route (presidents and congress people) believe strongly in the fact that global stability, control, and predictability are preferable to change and upheaval on a global scale that could result in major foreign policy shifts
3. That upon learning the kinds of details about the things actually going on in the world it tends to scare the hell out of them
4. It’s a lot easier and cleaner to campaign and get elected on messages of American strength and power and dominance than any other message in an arena the public in general doesn’t know or care much about

Point 2 should read *could result from major foreign policy shifts, although what I actually typed is true as well I think

lol this is so insulting. As if Filthy can’t just be anti-intervention or support troop withdraw on his own. Filthy has been consistently anti-imperialist as long as he has been posting in this thread, Kokiri. They aren’t my standards, they are his

Not having an opinion is effectively supporting the status quo. That is my point. You can’t challenge the status quo, which at this point is imperialism, without having an opinion on it

You keep babbling about like electoral tactics and strategy which is not what filthy and I are discussing. Don’t really care “why” AOC won her primary—we are discussing whether she actually represents an opposition to imperialsim.

Like I legit do not see how you are connecting any of the points you made in this post to any of the things filthy and I are saying.

My point is she isn't representing an opposition to imperialism

She didn't run on an opposition to imperialism

So why are we even discussing it

She will likely win in November and it will have nothing to do with her opinion on imperialism

She is one representative in the house that is much more concerned with how her constituents put food on ther table than whether we should recognize russia annexing crimea or that israel just bombed syrias weapon supplies that were going to Hezbollah

100% these.

Herbie, foreign policy is very difficult, even with full blown intelligence operations and a clear picture of priorities. Laymen are left with scraps of loaded information, so specific policy critiques are always going to be hopelessly under-informed.

That said, general standards of conduct and the desirability of certain outcomes are things that we lay people should be able to weigh in upon.

I don’t disagree with that at all, although I often wonder about the term “outcomes” when defined even moderately broadly due to the often interconnected nature of said outcomes

For instance I am broadly supportive of a two state outcome in the Israel Palestine conversation but I have no earthly idea what the details of such a solution would be or what kind of path has a realistic chance of getting us there, and I’m not sure there is an answer to those questions that would create such an outcome as I would want. So my support for a two state outcome feels like little more than a platitude in that case

I also think that when we talk about acceptable standards of conduct it is much like what we consider to be acceptable side effects for drugs. It would be ridiculous to approve a drug to treat facial acne that carries the same side effects as a drug meant to prolong the life of a person with late stage cancer. I think the same is true for the moral calculus involved in foreign policy decisions

Jerusalem is the main stumbling block, and im not sure how that gets resolved

Giving full autonomy to most of the west bank is what israel will have to eventually do but they want assurances first, since they gave up gaza 11 years ago and feel it's made relations worse

We are not close to a full solution

I agree that rabin and arafat and clinton were on an encouraging path until rabins murder, but the majority of people in israel don't want to guve up the west bank

Where would those people go?
They aren't even allowed in any other mideast country

I mean, are you aware that if YOUR passport has an israeli stamp on it, you will be denied entry into syria, libya, iran, iraq, Saudi Arabia. I believe you can go into jordan and egypt since they now have peace treaties

But the jewish people on the west bank have nowhere else to go

The palestenians can go to any of those countries, although jordan is restricted a lot of immigration to the north

So peolle like birdman who are all like israel is imperial they should give it all up, are you okay with those people having no homes?

Also contrary to popular belief many muslims in israel do not favor a 2 state solution, because if it happens israrl may make it a true jewush state and they would lose rights

Yes in some instances they already have fewer rights than the israelis but they have more rights than they would anywhere in the muslim world

I think i stated that the city of jaffe which is muslim was one of my favorite cities i visited in israel. They love Israel, they embrace israel

Sure, but the exploration of those connections can be a meaningful goal when having foreign policy discussions.

The alternatives, either abstention or total recalcitrance, inhibit the formation of "public opinion" and thus aggravate the instance of special interest predominance.

Mets, even though I am generally on your side of this issue (Israel's existence, two-state solution), your whataboutting is still cringeworthy.

It doesn't matter how restrictive Iran or Lebanon might be when assessing the propriety of Israeli policy. Either you believe in an absolute standard of polity or you invite moral freefall.

Uh...

I need you to explain

Birdman, can you distinguish "imperialism" from "international trade"?

My point being muslims can go to israel or any country.

The israelis can't based on the other countries immigration laws

So i know what you're point is, but what's your solution to mine

Like an arms race, except instead of weapons it's oppressive governance.

Yeah so you obviously see this as a negative thing, and I’m not so sure that I do. I actually think it’s likely that a foreign policy driven by public opinion would be materially worse than the one we have today.

Can't the West Bank jews go to Israel?