651–660 of 879 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FDR stripped 110,000 Americans of their property and herded them into concentration camps.
I’m not in USA and I don’t know about this story. Do you have a name for it so I can search?
As president, Carter gave the green light for Doo-hwan Chun to use force against the pro-democracy protests in Gwangju, S Korea. Later, sent to N Korea by president Clinton, he massively exceeded his authority and made a sweetheart deal that guaranteed N Korea would eventually build nukes. President Clinton found out about the deal on CNN with everyone else and never used Carter again. He also sandbagged president Re…
None of that happened.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/11/jimmy-carters-blood-...
for more details you can also look at part 1
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. Many of the things people like to bring up when complaining about "a shift to the left" are fringe ideas even on the left, and are amplified by right-wingers who are trying to paint the left as out of touch with reality. Having said that, age-appropriate sex ed in elementary school (e.g. talking about bodily autonomy and consent) is actu…
> The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. The idea of "gender identity" as based on a subjective inner sense of self, and that "gender identity" must supersede sex, fundamentally reframes a core characteristic of the entire human population. When implemented in law and policy, this affects everyone. The impact is mostly on women and girls, for whom female-only spaces are essen…
This is an inherently self-contradictory position, because it implies that trans men must be forced into women's spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> won WWII or so Hollywood would have us believe
Sure, the parts Stalin didn’t win.
So Stalin may have played a part in ending WW2, but don't forget his part in starting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Countries are not "for" ethnicities, nor should they be in the modern era. Yes, I include Japan, Saudi, etc. in my calculations. But those states' existence did not make a substantial group of people stateless.
I think the history of Israel/Palestine is complicated, and everyone has some blame for the lack of current day peace, but let's be clear that the majority of Jews who became Israelis were not some conquering colonizers - they were the weakest refugees in the world, who had just seen 90% of their family killed, and had nowhere else to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that he was pro-peace. He wanted both Israel and Palestine to exist, not one at the expense of the other. Just as he peace treaty with Egypt was pro-Peace not pro-Egyptian. For this reason he opposed Israeli settlements in the West Bank saying they were leading to a situation akin to apartheid, eg https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-... It wasn’t very successful as a proposition…
What is the difference between pro-peace and pro-Palestine? I've always understood them to largely be different terms in favor of a two-state solution.
As some people use the term, it means the dissolution of Israel. As others use it, it means being in favor of a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine for a two state solution.
I think if you ask most Israelis (including me), they'll tell you that it's an unfortunate reality that most Palestinians themselves don't actually want peace - they want Israel gone. Many people who call themselves pro-Palestinian mean that they want whatever Palestinians want, which includes the dissolution of Israel.
Personally, I think being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine should both be the same as being pro-peace, because the only think that will ensure a good future for both peoples will be having peace between them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet he supported a coup. He was just too "blind" to see which one. And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.
If you are talking about the 1953 coup, I've never heard that description. Everything I've read says the UK, with some degree of US support, overthrew the government. > And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness. That's exactly a coup. The people who conduct coups - and…
At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government.
Things are not always simple and straightforward.